From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757393AbcHYLxt (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:53:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45894 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751269AbcHYLxr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:53:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:37:08 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin , Jacob Pan , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 20/20] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread to kthread worker API Message-ID: <20160825113708.GH4866@pathway.suse.cz> References: <1460646879-617-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1460646879-617-21-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160825083316.myqbas7d6gtv62c6@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160825083316.myqbas7d6gtv62c6@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2016-08-25 10:33:17, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-04-14 17:14:39 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > > Kthreads are currently implemented as an infinite loop. Each > > has its own variant of checks for terminating, freezing, > > awakening. In many cases it is unclear to say in which state > > it is and sometimes it is done a wrong way. > > What is the status of this? This is the last email I received and it is > from April. There were still some discussions about the kthread worker API. Anyway, the needed kthread API changes are in Andrew's -mm tree now and will be hopefully included in 4.9. I did not want to send the patches using the API before the API changes are upstream. But I could send the two intel_powerclamp patches now if you are comfortable with having them on top of the -mm tree or linux-next. Best Regards, Petr