![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:25:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Well that create_workqueue_thread() will basically never fail - it's not a > > path we need to be optimising. > > Even if thread creation normally never fails, we still check for its > return code and have some error recovery code! In that case, > I dont understand the point behind continuing the loop once thread > destruction fails for some CPU. Lets say on a 128 CPU machine, if > thread creation fails for the 1st CPU (because of say ENOMEM?), then > why continue trying to create threads for the rest of 126 CPUs and > _then_ destroy? Why not just break at the first occurence of failure > and cleanup then and there? > Because there's less code to get wrong. In this situation, correctness, clarity and code size are the only things we care about. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||