Gregory, we seem to more or less agree with each other, but still... On 08/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 08/01, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 02:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > No, > > > > You sure are a confident one ;) > > Yeah, this is a rare case when I am very sure I am right ;) > > I strongly believe you guys take a _completely_ wrong approach. > queue_work() should _not_ take the priority of the caller into > account, this is bogus. OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad. Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered" issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and "deprecate" such a code. The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular" queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the priority of work_struct. Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
