On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > +/* THINK maybe we actually want to use the default "event/%s" worker
> > threads
> > + * or similar in linux 2.6, which uses per cpu data and threads.
> > + *
> > + * To be general, this might need a spin_lock member.
> > + * For now, please use the mdev->req_lock to protect list_head,
> > + * see drbd_queue_work below.
> > + */
> > +struct drbd_work_queue {
> > + struct list_head q;
> > + struct semaphore s; /* producers up it, worker down()s it */
> > + spinlock_t q_lock; /* to protect the list. */
> > +};
> >
> > Umm, how about fixing this to actually use proper workqueues or something
> > instead of this open-coded mess?
>
> unlikely to happen "right now".
> but it is on our todo list...
But stuff like that is definitely a merge show stopper, jfyi.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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/
