On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 17:31 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > Mike Christie wrote: > > Robert Love wrote: > >> The following [RFC] is a mostly complete set of patches that moves > >> gpn_id and gnn_id into fc_rport.c. They become part of the RP state > >> machine as the first two states in the sequence of states. > >> > >> These patches also start the RP state machine from a work thread. > >> > > > > I do not think we should use the system work queue. If we really need to > > create a driver wide one for this. I was wondering why we need to > > schedule_work in some cases though? Like why does fc_ns_new_target > > schedule the rport login instead of just doing it in that context? > > > > Also it looks like all drivers are going to want to queue the lport, > > rport and ns stuff into a thread. Could we just make the > > threading/workqueue generic code, so that if we do not need to queue > > I mean so that if we need to queue work then we just use the libfc ones. > We've come to the conclusion that we don't need a work queue. I got the work threads stuck in my head because of some other stuff I was trying to do and it started to infect this patch-set :). I'm dropping the work queue stuff in the revision I'm working on.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
