From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD54EDDEE4 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:32:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:31:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc pseries eeh: Convert to kthread API Message-ID: <20070422123155.GF20763@infradead.org> References: <11769695763104-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <11769695763104-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> Cc: ", linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , containers@lists.osdl.org, Oleg Nesterov List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > From: Eric W. Biederman > > This patch modifies the startup of eehd to use kthread_run > not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Making > the code slightly simpler and more maintainable. This one has the same scheme as the various s390 drivers where a thread is spawned using a workqueue on demand. I think we should not blindly convert it but think a litte more about it. The first question is obviously, is this really something we want? spawning kernel thread on demand without reaping them properly seems quite dangerous. The second question is whether this is the right implementation. kthread_create already works by using a workqueue to create the thread and then waits for it. If we really want to support creating threads asynchronously on demand we should have a proper API in kthread.c for this instead of spreading workqueues.