On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > 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?
The only thing wrong with sysfs_do_something_in_a_different_task_context() is the length of the name. "do", that's good, much better than "access". sysfs_access_in_other_task() left me wondering what this "other" task was, and what kind of "access" it's trying to get - or is the calling task the other, and it's trying to access something it wouldn't directly have access to? > > 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. True, though since he's saying "work" rather than "workstruct", I was okay with that: it's a sysfs wrapper to schedule_work(). > > 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. A lot happier than with sysfs_access_in_other_task() - if you prefer this to Dmitry's, it's okay by me. Hugh - 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/
