lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events.
Date
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> A consequent (if somewhat silly) name for queue_delayed_work would be
> queue_delayed_dwork, since it requires a struct dwork_struct.

Yeah... Sometimes I wish C has type-based function overloading like C++ does.

> 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.

There are a few, but not many. Your suggestion is a good one, I think.
queue_delayed_work() can just devolve to queue_work() if delay == 0.

David
-
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: 2006-11-20 16:53    [W:0.075 / U:5.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site