On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:50:47 +0100 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 __ 12:44 -0800, Andrew Morton a __crit : > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:21:55 +0100 > > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 __ 12:17 -0800, Andi Kleen a __crit : > > > > > > > > > > I wont discuss about a function _name_ Andrew. > > > > > > > > > > If nobody can chose one better than the one I chosed, what can I do ? > > > > > > > > kthread_create_node() would seem logical (with a node parameter) > > > > > > > > -Andi > > > > > > I already explained why I dont like this suggestion. > > > > > > 1) My plan was to later add cpu affinity. > > > > That would be called kthread_create_on_cpu() except whoops, this patch > > already took that. > > > > I surrender :) Does that mean we have a name ;) > I'll send a patch, or do you prefer I respin the 4 patches ? I can trivially edit the patches locally if it's just a rename. kthread_create_for_cpu() would do the trick, I suggest. If we decide on kthread_create_node(node_t) then that's a significant rework. I'm all worn out too and would be OK with either approach. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
