linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events.

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, 20 Nov 2006 16:35:15 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable
 events.

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/
-
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/