On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > The naming seems a bit unintuitive, but I don't have a good > > > alternative idea. Perhaps sysfs_work_struct, sysfs_delayed_work()? > > > > sysfs_work_struct is too generic; other parts of sysfs might also want to > > use workqueues for different purposes. > > > I don't like calling it "delayed"-anything, because the operations aren't > > necessarily delayed! On an SMP system they might even execute before the > > sysfs_access_in_other_task() call returns. (Although the two examples we > > have so far can't do that because of lock contention.) > > Sure. But then you shouldn't refer to "delay" in the comments for the > functions as well :)
Fair enough. One use of "delay" is in a comment you wrote; I'll change it as well. > > The major feature added here is that the work takes place in a different > > task's context, not that it is delayed. Hence the choice of names. > > Hm. Perhaps device_schedule_access()? On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > It's really none of my business, I'm merely the reporter the > deadlock being fixed, and I don't know my way around sysfs at all ... > > ... but I have to say I share your discomfort with Alan's > "sysfs_access_in_other_task" naming, it sounded very weird to me. > > Quite apart from this mysterious "other task", I don't understand > "access" either. > > Perhaps "defer" would best capture the idea of another-task and > maybe-delay? sysfs_defer_work(), struct sysfs_deferred_work? On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > But we do not wish to defer or delay anything. > How about: sysfs_action_from_neutral_context On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > How about sysfs_schedule_work? That is what it does - schedules a work > on a sysfs object and everyone here knows what schedule_work() does. On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I'm ashamed to have suggested anything else: certainly gets my vote. Personally I don't understand what was wrong with my name. What's weird or unintuitive about doing something in a different task's context? Dmitry's suggestion is slightly inappropriate because the function doesn't take a workstruct as an argument and it isn't itself a workqueue callback. Would people be happier with sysfs_schedule_callback() and device_schedule_callback()? At least the functions do take a callback pointer as an argument, even though they aren't callbacks themselves. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
