On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:02 AM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anyway, does this multiple kthreadd approach look reasonable?
I don't see anything that looks alarming.
My main reaction was that I don't like the "kthreadd" name, but that's
because for some reason I always read it as "kthre add". That may be
just me. It normally doesn't bother me (this code doesn't get all that
much work on it, it's been very stable), but it was very obvious when
reading your patches.
In fact, I liked _your_ naming better, to the point where I was going
"'kthread_group' is a much better name than 'kthreadd', and that
'kthreadd()' function would read better as 'kthread_group_run()' or
something".
But that may just be a personal quirk of mine, and isn't a big deal.
On the whole the patches looked all sane to me.
> (If so, who should handle the patches?)
We have had _very_ little work in this area, probably because most of
the kthread work has been subsumed by workqueues.
Which kind of makes me want to point a finger at Tejun. But it's been
mostly PeterZ touching this file lately..
Linus
