From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/20] kthread: Add drain_kthread_worker() Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:18:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20160227151832.GG6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1456153030-12400-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1456153030-12400-5-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160225123551.GG6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160226152309.GH3305@pathway.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160226152309.GH3305-KsEp0d+Q8qECVLCxKZUutA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > I do not have a strong opinion here. On one hand, such a check might > help with debugging. On the other hand, workqueues have happily lived > without it for years. TJ and me have a different view on these things. I'm always for the strictest possible semantics with strong validation. TJ always worries a lot about existing users. Luckily, you don't have users yet :-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA69C6B0005 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id p65so19613501wmp.1 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org. [2001:770:15f::2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vx5si22034381wjc.219.2016.02.27.07.18.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:18:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:18:32 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/20] kthread: Add drain_kthread_worker() Message-ID: <20160227151832.GG6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1456153030-12400-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1456153030-12400-5-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160225123551.GG6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160226152309.GH3305@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160226152309.GH3305@pathway.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > I do not have a strong opinion here. On one hand, such a check might > help with debugging. On the other hand, workqueues have happily lived > without it for years. TJ and me have a different view on these things. I'm always for the strictest possible semantics with strong validation. TJ always worries a lot about existing users. Luckily, you don't have users yet :-) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756688AbcB0PSh (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:18:37 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59182 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756331AbcB0PSf (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:18:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:18:32 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/20] kthread: Add drain_kthread_worker() Message-ID: <20160227151832.GG6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1456153030-12400-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1456153030-12400-5-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160225123551.GG6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160226152309.GH3305@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160226152309.GH3305@pathway.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > I do not have a strong opinion here. On one hand, such a check might > help with debugging. On the other hand, workqueues have happily lived > without it for years. TJ and me have a different view on these things. I'm always for the strictest possible semantics with strong validation. TJ always worries a lot about existing users. Luckily, you don't have users yet :-)