On 05/21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, 21 May 2007 22:23, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > The reason I asked is because, prior to the release of 2.6.22, I sent > > in a patch which added a create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue() > > macro. Now it isn't needed, since create_freezeable_workqueue() does > > the same thing. Is there any reason to keep the macro? > > > > I'm worried that if I get rid of it and simply define the workqueue as > > freezable, then at some time in the future it might turn into a > > multithread workqueue without my knowledge. > > If we introduce multithread freezable workqueues again, we'll have to review > all current users of create_freezeable_workqueue() anyway to see whether or > not they need to use a singlethread workqueue. Still, if you added a comment > saying that your workqueue had to be singlethread, that would certainly help. ;-) Probably Alan is right? Perhaps it is better to rename it to create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue(). This way we don't need to audit the users when we add multithread freezable wqs. Also, this name is more consistent wrt create_workqueue/create_singlethread_workqueue. Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
