From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HM6oF-0007EG-6i for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:12:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] UBI: convert to kthread API From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Josh Boyer In-Reply-To: <1172599497.3885.2.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200702271450.41167.alexs@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1172598460.17031.4.camel@sauron> <1172599497.3885.2.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:11:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1172599889.17031.9.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Schmidt , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 12:04 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 19:47 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Hello Alexander, > >=20 > > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:50 +0100, Alexander Schmidt wrote: > > > UBI should use the kthread API, which makes completions and signal > > > handling go away. > >=20 > > how feasible and possible is to get rid of this UBI unit altogether? >=20 > Depends I suppose. Is it going to make a large runtime functionality or > performance impact if a background thread isn't running? Sorry for vagueness, I do not mean to remove th background _process_, we really need it. I meant to remove the UBI unit source-wise and use the kthread calls directly. I am busy with other stuff right now and wanted Alexander to check how much ugliness or niceness we would introduce with that change. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)