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]

Message-ID: <14240.1164037381@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:43:01 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events. 

Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.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
-
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/