On Tue 2015-07-28 13:40:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * set_kthread_worker_user_nice - set scheduling priority for the kthread worker
> > + * @worker: target kthread_worker
> > + * @nice: niceness value
> > + */
> > +void set_kthread_worker_user_nice(struct kthread_worker *worker, long nice)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *task = worker->task;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(!task);
> > + set_user_nice(task, nice);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_kthread_worker_user_nice);
>
> kthread_worker is explcitly associated with a single kthread. Why do
> we want to create explicit wrappers for kthread operations? This is
> encapsulation for encapsulation's sake. It doesn't buy us anything at
> all. Just let the user access the associated kthread and operate on
> it.
My plan is to make the API cleaner and hide struct kthread_worker
definition into kthread.c. It would prevent anyone doing any hacks
with it. BTW, we do the same with struct workqueue_struct.
Another possibility would be to add helper function to get the
associated task struct but this might cause inconsistencies when
the worker is restarted.
Best Regards,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>