[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114113450.66769432@gondolin>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:34:50 +0100
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] async: Handle kthread_run() return codes.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:34:34 +0000,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> > ec = atomic_read(&entry_count);
> >
> > while (tc < ec && tc < MAX_THREADS) {
> > - kthread_run(async_thread, NULL, "async/%i",
> > tc);
> > + if (IS_ERR(kthread_run(async_thread, NULL,
> > "async/%i",
> > + tc)))
> > + /* Try again later. */
> > + goto schedule;
>
> I do not like this recovery to be honest. an msleep() followed by a
> "continue" is probably much better.
Will change.
>
>
> > @@ -330,7 +333,9 @@ static int async_manager_thread(void *un
> > static int __init async_init(void)
> > {
> > if (async_enabled)
> > - kthread_run(async_manager_thread, NULL, "async/mgr");
> > + if (IS_ERR(kthread_run(async_manager_thread, NULL,
> > + "async/mgr")))
> > + async_enabled = 0;
>
> hmm maybe; it might make more sense to set it to 0 here, and have the
> thread itself set the variable to 1..... that way we KNOW the thread is
> running for sure..
That would look a bit strange to me.
setup_async sets async_enabled -> async_init unsets it again ->
async_manager_thread sets it again
If anything, we could use two variables (use_async and async_enabled),
but that smells of overengeneering to me...
--
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