Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks | From | Maxim Levitsky <> | Date | Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:24:37 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 20:19 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 11:05 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:09:23PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > Now that my exams done.... > > > > Can you spare me from using a workqueue? > > > > I'd much prefer if you convert to workqueue. > > > > > > The point is that using current model I wake the worker thread as much > > > > as I want to, and I know that it will be woken once an will do all the > > > > work till request queue is empty. > > > > You can do exactly the same thing by scheduling the same work item > > multiple times. "Waking up" just becomes "scheduling the work item". > I don't believe that will work this way. > I will dig through the source, and see how to do that. > > > > > > > With workqueues, it doesn't work this way. I have to pass the request as > > > > a work item or something like that. > > > > Any pointers? > > > > No, there's no reason to change the structure of the code in any way. > > Just use a work item as you would use a kthread. > Except that if I schedule a same work item few times, these work items > will be 'processed' in parallel, although there is just one work to do, > work of pulling the requests from block queue until it has them, and > dispatching them through my code. > Or I can get a guarantee that work items wont be processed in parallel? > Stiil, even with that only first work item will do the actual work, > others will wake the workqueue for nothing, but I am ok with that. Should have looked through the source. Understand now. Just one quick question, should I create my own workqueue or use schedule_work? if I use the later and my work function sleeps, will it harmfully affect other users of this function?
-- Best regards, Maxim Levitsky
|  |