From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265596AbUABQ6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:58:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265610AbUABQ6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:58:15 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:36483 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265596AbUABQ6N (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:58:13 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Rusty Russell cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread_create In-Reply-To: <20040102071215.6D43C2C059@lists.samba.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message yo > u write: > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > But an alternate implementation would be to have a "kthread" kernel > > > thread, which would actually be parent to the kthread threads. This > > > means it can allocate and clean up, since it catches *all* thread > > > deaths, including "exit()". > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Did you take a look at the stuff I sent you? I'll append here with a > > simple comment (this goes over you bits). > > Yes, but I think it's a really bad idea, as I said before. > > Anyway, Here's a version which fixes the issues raised by Andrew by > doing *everything* in keventd, uses waitpid(), and uses signals for > communication (except for the case of init failing). Rusty, you still have to use global static data when there is no need. I like this version better though ;) - Davide