From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: 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 16:35:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4561CB33.2060502@s5r6.in-berlin.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061120142716.12685.47219.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
David Howells wrote:
> Separate delayable work items from non-delayable work items be splitting them
> into a separate structure (dwork_struct), which incorporates a work_struct and
> the timer_list removed from work_struct.
...
> if (!delay)
> - rc = queue_work(ata_wq, &ap->port_task);
> + rc = queue_dwork(ata_wq, &ap->port_task);
> else
> rc = queue_delayed_work(ata_wq, &ap->port_task, delay);
...
A consequent (if somewhat silly) name for queue_delayed_work would be
queue_delayed_dwork, since it requires a struct dwork_struct.
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.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =-== =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-20 15:35 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 [this message]
2006-11-20 15:43 ` David Howells
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=4561CB33.2060502@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
--to=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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