[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091108193633.GL8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:36:33 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 02:39:59PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 03:00:07 am Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:31:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > But it's still nasty to use half an API. If it were a few places I would
> > > have open-coded it with a comment, or wrapped it. As it is, I don't think
> > > that would be a win.
> >
> > So would it help to have a rcu_read_lock_workqueue() and
> > rcu_read_unlock_workqueue() that checked nesting and whether they were
> > actually running in the context of a workqueue item? Or did you have
> > something else in mind? Or am I misjudging the level of sarcasm in
> > your reply? ;-)
>
> You read correctly. If we get a second user, creating an API makes sense.
Makes sense to me as well. Which does provide some time to come up with
a primitive designed to answer the question "Am I currently executing in
the context of a workqueue item?". ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists