On Tue 2015-06-09 15:23:49, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Petr.
>
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +static int kthread_iterant_fn(void *kti_ptr)
> > +{
> > + struct kthread_iterant *kti = kti_ptr;
> > + void *data = kti->data;
> > +
> > + if (kti->init)
> > + kti->init(data);
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (kti->func)
> > + kti->func(data);
>
> Is supporting kthread_iterant w/o the body function intentional? If
> so, did you have anything specific on mind for it? I don't think it
> matters either way. Just curious how this came to be.
Good question. It might make sense to add a warning for kthreads
with empty main function.
Best Regards,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
