linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/10] workqueue: async worker destruction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 5 May 2014 11:02:17 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] workqueue: async worker destruction

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:08:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>  /**
> + * worker_unbind_pool() - unbind the worker from the pool
> + * @worker: worker which is bound to its pool
> + *
> + * Undo the pool-binding which had been done in create_worker()
> + */
> +static void worker_unbind_pool(struct worker *worker)

worker_unbind_from_pool() would be a better name but I don't think
using bind/unbind for this purpose is a good idea.  We already use
that pair of verbs for workers/pools being bound and unbound to CPUs.
I don't think we want to overload the terms for this purpose.  It gets
pretty confusing.  How about something like worker_detach_from_pool()
and later worker_attach_to_pool()?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/