From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 14:04:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D99E3C0.5010604@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210011653370.28821-102000@localhost.localdomain
Ingo,
Looking real good.
I still think that schedule_work() should have void* cookie passed to it
directly, instead of at INIT_WORK time [and possibly changing it by hand
in the driver, immediately before schedule_work() is called]
For drivers that pass an interface pointer like struct net_device*,
INIT_WORK-time, the current scheme is fine, but when the cookie
fluctuates more, it makes a lot more sense to pass void* to
schedule_work() itself.
Further, schedule_work(wq,data) is conceptually very close to
my_work_func(data) and makes the code easier to trace through: it
becomes more obvious what is the value of the my_work_func arg, at the
place in the code where schedule_work() is called. I see passing the
void* cookie as covering one common case, while adding void* arg to
schedule_work() would cover all cases...
[IMO the same argument can be applied to the existing timer API as well,
but timers are less often one-shot in kernel code, so it matter less...]
That said, I don't feel strongly about this, so can be convinced
otherwise fairly easily :) I would not complain if Linus applied your
patch as-is.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-01 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-01 16:24 [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 17:55 ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-10-01 21:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 18:04 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2002-10-01 18:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 21:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-01 21:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 19:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:32 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-03 18:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 23:20 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-02 4:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 21:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02 8:22 ` Oleg Drokin
2002-10-08 3:50 ` Jeff Dike
2002-10-01 18:52 Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-10-02 3:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 20:29 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02 3:23 ` Miles Bader
2002-10-02 19:18 ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-10-01 21:09 ` Jes Sorensen
2002-10-01 21:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-03 1:38 ` Kevin O'Connor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D99E3C0.5010604@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).