From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc pseries eeh: Convert to kthread API References: <11769695763104-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20070422123155.GF20763@infradead.org> <20070423205020.GR31947@austin.ibm.com> <1177378733.14873.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177382544.14873.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17965.35054.835790.275270@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:51:50 -0600 In-Reply-To: <17965.35054.835790.275270@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> (Paul Mackerras's message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:34:54 +1000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: To: Paul Mackerras Cc: ", linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, Oleg Nesterov List-ID: Paul Mackerras writes: > Eric W. Biederman writes: > >> Well the basic problem is that for any piece of code that can be modular >> we need a way to ensure all threads it has running are shutdown when we >> remove the module. > > The EEH code can't be modular, and wouldn't make any sense to be > modular, since it's part of the infrastructure for accessing PCI > devices. Agreed. However most kthread users are modular and make sense to be so we need to design to handle modular users. I don't think the idiom of go fire off a thread to handle something is specific to non-modular users. Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754574AbXDXEyK (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:54:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161552AbXDXEyK (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:54:10 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:51175 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754575AbXDXEyI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:54:08 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linas Vepstas , Christoph Hellwig , ", containers@lists.osdl.org, Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc pseries eeh: Convert to kthread API References: <11769695763104-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20070422123155.GF20763@infradead.org> <20070423205020.GR31947@austin.ibm.com> <1177378733.14873.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177382544.14873.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17965.35054.835790.275270@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:51:50 -0600 In-Reply-To: <17965.35054.835790.275270@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> (Paul Mackerras's message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:34:54 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Mackerras writes: > Eric W. Biederman writes: > >> Well the basic problem is that for any piece of code that can be modular >> we need a way to ensure all threads it has running are shutdown when we >> remove the module. > > The EEH code can't be modular, and wouldn't make any sense to be > modular, since it's part of the infrastructure for accessing PCI > devices. Agreed. However most kthread users are modular and make sense to be so we need to design to handle modular users. I don't think the idiom of go fire off a thread to handle something is specific to non-modular users. Eric