From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: thread-index: AcQVpA4xuvGlmne4QGiOjhPG5gwPmg== Envelope-to: paul@sumlocktest.fsnet.co.uk Delivery-date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:45:58 +0000 Message-ID: <00aa01c415a4$0e315370$d100000a@sbs2003.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:39:43 +0100 From: "Davide Libenzi" X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread_create In-Reply-To: <20040103030802.BD1DB2C06E@lists.samba.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 15:39:44.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[0EF00F90:01C415A4] On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message you write: > > Rusty, you still have to use global static data when there is no need. > > And you're still putting obscure crap in the task struct when there's > no need. Honestly, I'd be ashamed to post such a patch. Ashamed !? Take a look at your original patch and then define shame. You had a communication mechanism that whilst being a private 1<->1 communication among two tasks, relied on a single global message strucure, lock and mutex. Honestly I do not like myself to add stuff inside a strcture for one-time use. Not because of adding 12 bytes to the struct, that are laughable. But because it is used by a small piece of code w/out a re-use ability for other things. > > I like this version better though ;) > > I think I should seek a second opinion though. But of course, even a third one ;) - Davide