[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160227151832.GG6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:18:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/20] kthread: Add drain_kthread_worker()
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I do not have a strong opinion here. On one hand, such a check might
> help with debugging. On the other hand, workqueues have happily lived
> without it for years.
TJ and me have a different view on these things. I'm always for the
strictest possible semantics with strong validation. TJ always worries a
lot about existing users.
Luckily, you don't have users yet :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists