[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210402144455.GA19264@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:44:55 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: make map_benchmark compile into module
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 07:33:23AM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> The requirement comes from an colleague who is frequently changing
> the map-bench code for some customized test purpose. and he doesn't
> want to build kernel image and reboot every time. So I moved the
> requirement to Tao Tian.
>
> Right now, kthread_bind() is exported, kthread_bind_mask() seems
> to be a little bit "internal" as you said, maybe a wrapper like
> kthread_bind_node() won't be that "internal", comparing to exposing
> the cpumask?
I really don't think we should be exporting more low-level kthread
APIs. Especially as we've been trying to get most users off the
kthread API and to workqueues instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists