On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > +static int cbus_event_thread(void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i, non_empty = 0, empty = 0;
> > > > + struct cbus_event_container *c;
> > > > +
> > > > + daemonize(cbus_name);
> > > > + allow_signal(SIGTERM);
> > > > + set_user_nice(current, 19);
> > >
> > > Please use the kthread api for managing this thread.
> > >
> > > Is a new kernel thread needed?
> >
> > Logic behind cbus is following:
> > 1. make insert operation return as soon as possible,
> > 2. deferring actual message delivering to the safe time
> >
> > That thread does second point.
>
> But does it need a new thread rather than using the existing keventd?
Yes, it is much cleaner [especially from performance tuning point]
to use own kernel thread than pospone all work to the queued work.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
