From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: thread-index: AcQVo+9kMqsBTqeqSj2MWP4ApXua5g== Envelope-to: paul@sumlocktest.fsnet.co.uk Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:00:37 +0000 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Message-ID: <001801c415a3$ef64cdf0$d100000a@sbs2003.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:38:51 +0100 From: "Davide Libenzi" X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 To: Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread_create In-Reply-To: <20040102071215.6D43C2C059@lists.samba.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 Sender: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 15:38:51.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFBF7110:01C415A3] On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message yo > u write: > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > But an alternate implementation would be to have a "kthread" kernel > > > thread, which would actually be parent to the kthread threads. This > > > means it can allocate and clean up, since it catches *all* thread > > > deaths, including "exit()". > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Did you take a look at the stuff I sent you? I'll append here with a > > simple comment (this goes over you bits). > > Yes, but I think it's a really bad idea, as I said before. > > Anyway, Here's a version which fixes the issues raised by Andrew by > doing *everything* in keventd, uses waitpid(), and uses signals for > communication (except for the case of init failing). Rusty, you still have to use global static data when there is no need. I like this version better though ;) - Davide