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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
