Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:35:15 +0100 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events. |
| |
David Howells wrote: > Separate delayable work items from non-delayable work items be splitting them > into a separate structure (dwork_struct), which incorporates a work_struct and > the timer_list removed from work_struct. ... > if (!delay) > - rc = queue_work(ata_wq, &ap->port_task); > + rc = queue_dwork(ata_wq, &ap->port_task); > else > rc = queue_delayed_work(ata_wq, &ap->port_task, delay); ...
A consequent (if somewhat silly) name for queue_delayed_work would be queue_delayed_dwork, since it requires a struct dwork_struct.
Are there many or frequent usages of "undelayed delayable work" like above, where runtime decides if a delay is necessary? If not, queue_dwork could be removed from the API and queue_(delayed_|d)work be called with delay=0. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-==- =-== =-=-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
| |