Re: [PATCH] memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks

[Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 20:19 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: 
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 11:05 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:09:23PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > Now that my exams done....
> > > > Can you spare me from using a workqueue?
> > 
> > I'd much prefer if you convert to workqueue.
> > 
> > > > The point is that using current model I wake the worker thread as much
> > > > as I want to, and I know that it will be woken once an will do all the
> > > > work till request queue is empty.
> > 
> > You can do exactly the same thing by scheduling the same work item
> > multiple times.  "Waking up" just becomes "scheduling the work item".
> I don't believe that will work this way.
> I will dig through the source, and see how to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> > > > With workqueues, it doesn't work this way. I have to pass the request as
> > > > a work item or something like that.
> > > > Any pointers?
> > 
> > No, there's no reason to change the structure of the code in any way.
> > Just use a work item as you would use a kthread.
> Except that if I schedule a same work item few times, these work items
> will be 'processed' in parallel, although there is just one work to do,
> work of pulling the requests from block queue until it has them, and
> dispatching them through my code.
> Or I can get a guarantee that work items wont be processed in parallel?
> Stiil, even with that only first work item will do the actual work,
> others will wake the workqueue for nothing, but I am ok with that.
Should have looked through the source. Understand now.
Just one quick question, should I create my own workqueue or use
schedule_work? if I use the later and my work function sleeps, will it
harmfully affect other users of this function?


-- 
Best regards,
        Maxim Levitsky