[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0704241507460.2490@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:08:57 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Spontaneous exit support
On Apr 23 2007 12:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:12:55PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> This patch implements the kthread helper functions kthread_start
>> and kthread_end which make it simple to support a kernel thread
>> that may decided to exit on it's own before we request it to.
>> It is still assumed that eventually we will get around to requesting
>> that the kernel thread stop.
>
>I don't think having to parallel APIs is a good idea, people will
>get utterly confused which one to use. Better always grab a reference
>in kthread_create and drop it in kthread_stop. For normal thread
>no change in behaviour and only slightly more code in the slowpath.
I *am* already confused... a driver of mine does:
static __init int thkd_init(void)
{
touch_task = kthread_run(touch_thread, Device, "thkd");
...
}
and
static __exit void thkd_exit(void)
{
kthread_stop(touch_task);
/* I bet something is missing */
}
now what good would kthread_run do me?
Jan
--
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists