[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ild0w5qs.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 10:44:43 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kthread: Unify kernel_thread() and user_mode_thread()
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn> writes:
> Commit 343f4c49f2438d8 ("kthread: Don't allocate kthread_struct for init
> and umh") introduces a new function user_mode_thread() for init and umh.
> But the name is a bit confusing because init and umh are indeed kernel
> threads at creation time, the real difference is "they will become user
> processes".
No they are not "kernel threads" at creation time. At creation time
init and umh are threads running in the kernel.
It is a very important distinction and you are loosing it.
Because they don't have a kthread_struct such tasks in the kernel
are not allowed to depend on anything that is ``kthread''.
Having this a separate function highlights the distinction.
Highlighting should hopefully cause people to ask why there is a
distinction, and what is going on.
> So let's unify the kernel_thread() and user_mode_thread() to
> kernel_thread() again, and add a new 'user' parameter for init and
> umh
Now that is confusing.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists