public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:43:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <14240.1164037381@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4561CB33.2060502@s5r6.in-berlin.de>

Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> A consequent (if somewhat silly) name for queue_delayed_work would be
> queue_delayed_dwork, since it requires a struct dwork_struct.

Yeah...  Sometimes I wish C has type-based function overloading like C++ does.

> Are there many or frequent usages of "undelayed delayable work" like
> above, where runtime decides if a delay is necessary? If not,
> queue_dwork could be removed from the API and queue_(delayed_|d)work be
> called with delay=0.

There are a few, but not many.  Your suggestion is a good one, I think.
queue_delayed_work() can just devolve to queue_work() if delay == 0.

David

  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-20 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-20 14:27 [PATCH 0/4] WorkStruct: Shrink work_struct by two thirds David Howells
2006-11-20 14:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events David Howells
2006-11-20 15:35   ` Stefan Richter
2006-11-20 15:43     ` David Howells [this message]
2006-11-20 18:32     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-21 11:30       ` David Howells
2006-11-20 14:27 ` [PATCH 2/4] WorkStruct: Typedef the work function prototype David Howells
2006-11-20 15:38   ` Stefan Richter
2006-11-20 15:47     ` David Howells
2006-11-20 16:13       ` Stefan Richter
2006-11-21 14:53       ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-11-20 14:27 ` [PATCH 3/4] WorkStruct: Merge the pending bit into the wq_data pointer David Howells
2006-11-21  0:34   ` Randy Dunlap
2006-11-20 14:27 ` [PATCH 4/4] WorkStruct: Pass the work_struct pointer instead of context data David Howells
2006-11-20 16:32 ` [PATCH 0/4] WorkStruct: Shrink work_struct by two thirds Trond Myklebust
2006-11-21 10:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-11-21 11:08     ` David Howells
2006-11-20 19:17 ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-21 11:28   ` David Howells
2006-11-21 13:09   ` Jan Engelhardt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=14240.1164037381@redhat.com \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox