On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:56 PM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 2021-11-02 09:26:35, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 9:18 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 09:09:50 +0800 > > > Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Now we only care about kthread, so we can put the pointer into a > > > > kthread specific struct. > > > > For example in the struct kthread, or in kthread->data (which may > > > > conflict with workqueue). > > > > > > No, add a new field to the structure. "full_name" or something like that. > > > I'm guessing it should be NULL if the name fits in TASK_COMM_LEN and > > > allocated if the name had to be truncated. > > > > > > Do not overload data with this. That will just make things confusing. > > > There's not that many kthreads, where an addition of an 8 byte pointer is > > > going to cause issues. > > > > Sure, I will add a new field named "full_name", which only be > > allocated if the kthread's comm is truncated. > > The plan looks good to me. > > One more thing. It should obsolete the workqueue-specific solution. > It would be great to clean up the workqueue code as the next step. > Agreed. The worker comm can be replaced by the new kthread full_name. I will do it in the next step. -- Thanks Yafang
