From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261767AbVFPQpm (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:45:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261771AbVFPQpm (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:45:42 -0400 Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com ([216.239.45.4]:41460 "EHLO 216-239-45-4.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261767AbVFPQpe (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:45:34 -0400 Message-ID: <42B1ACA6.7020105@google.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:45:26 -0700 From: Hareesh Nagarajan User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dipankar@in.ibm.com CC: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Porting kref to a 2.4 kernel (2.4.20 or greater) References: <42B06344.4040909@google.com> <20050615220734.GC620@kroah.com> <42B0B017.60001@google.com> <20050616091853.GA4965@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20050616091853.GA4965@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dipankar Sarma wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:47:51PM -0700, Hareesh Nagarajan wrote: > >>Correction: >>(Appears with a *) >> >>Greg KH wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:20:04AM -0700, Hareesh Nagarajan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>What stumbling blocks do you think I would encounter if I wanted to port >>>>kref to a 2.4.xx kernel? Is kref tightly coupled with the kernel object >>>>infrastructure found in the 2.6.xx kernel? >>> >>>Have you looked at the kref code to see if there is any such coupling? >> >>>Can you describe any problems you are having doing the uncoupling? >> >>I'm having problems porting the KObject* and Work Queue infrastructure >>to the 2.4 kernel. Any ideas if anyone has tried this port? >> >>(Correction: * => I meant KThread) > > > There were a number of backports of 2.6 workqueue stuff without > kthread (before they were introduced for cpu hotplug) floating > around in mailing list. You can probably google for them. I will do that! > Aren't they sufficient or does google want to do CPU hotplug ? :) I was thinking of porting the RelayFS patches (from 2.6.11-mm2) to the 2.4 kernel. RelayFS seems to use the work queue infrastructure. And AFAIK, Google doesn't seem to be too interested in hotplugging :) Thanks Dipankar! Hareesh