On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:37:04PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
I see.
but it is not that easy to do away with kernel threads
(the open-coded mess) in favor of "proper workqueues or something".
Lars
-
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/
