On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:33 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you > are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad.
No problem man. You found some legitimate problems too so your input is very much appreciated. > > Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered" > issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that > was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich > may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and > "deprecate" such a code. > > The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular" > queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the > priority of work_struct. Agreed. I think that is the right direction (assuming we can resolve the other problems, like the double queue+queue problem you brought up). Regards, -Greg - 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/
