Mike Christie wrote: > Robert Love wrote: >> 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. >> > > Cool. You should still probably make the threading common. >
Oh yeah, not "you" as in you in this patchset. I mean we can just add it to the todo. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
