From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: Singlethread vs. freezable workqueues Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:26:22 +0400 Message-ID: <20070522162622.GA668@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070522124520.GA256@tv-sign.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 05/22, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Probably Alan is right? Perhaps it is better to rename it to > > create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue(). This way we don't need to audit > > the users when we add multithread freezable wqs. > > > > Also, this name is more consistent wrt > > create_workqueue/create_singlethread_workqueue. > > I already sent in a revised patch and a request to revert the > create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue() macro! > > Whatever you guys decide, please let Greg and me know as soon as > possible. This particular fix is needed before 2.6.22 gets released. Ah, I am sorry for the confusion, I didn't see the start of this thread. Please do what you think right. Oleg.