On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:11:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok.Because of the module unloading issue, and because we don't have
> >> a lot of these threads running
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:11:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Ok.Because of the module unloading issue, and because we don't have
a lot of these threads running around, the
Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22:30AM -0500, Dean Nelson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > Taking it one step further, if you added the notion of a thread
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22:30AM -0500, Dean Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Taking it one step further, if you added the notion of a thread pool,
> > > where upon exit, a thread isn't
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22:30AM -0500, Dean Nelson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Taking it one step further, if you added the notion of a thread pool,
where upon exit, a thread isn't destroyed but
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22:30AM -0500, Dean Nelson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Taking it one step further, if you added the notion of a thread pool,
where upon
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> > XPC is in need of threads that can block indefinitely,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
XPC is in need of threads that can block indefinitely, which is why XPC
Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
>> > its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
> > its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for the time that active
> > contact with other XPCs
Dean Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
> its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for the time that active
> contact with other XPCs running on other SGI system partitions exists, and
> finally there is a pool
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:51:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
> kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
>
> And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
> a year _after_ the kthread interface was
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:51:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
a year _after_ the kthread interface was made
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for the time that active
contact with other XPCs running on other SGI system partitions exists, and
finally there is a pool of
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for the time that active
contact with other XPCs running on
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:02PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dean Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph is correct in that XPC has a single thread that exists throughout
its lifetime, another set of threads that exist for the time that
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
> not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
> in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
>
> Cc:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes
Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Russ/Dean/Robin - could one of you provide some feedback to this one
> please.
Dean's on vacation for a couple days and will test it when he gets back.
--
Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Like with the previous patch from Eric, I'm CC'ing the correct people
> for this patch (forwarded it in a seperate email). CC'ing irrelevant
> lists such as containers@ and not linux-ia64@ makes it somewhat
> difficult to get proper reviews of these
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable
Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like with the previous patch from Eric, I'm CC'ing the correct people
for this patch (forwarded it in a seperate email). CC'ing irrelevant
lists such as containers@ and not linux-ia64@ makes it somewhat
difficult to get proper reviews of these things.
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Russ/Dean/Robin - could one of you provide some feedback to this one
please.
Dean's on vacation for a couple days and will test it when he gets back.
--
Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
> not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
> in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
This
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:58:44AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
This driver is
Robin Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this was originally coded with daemonize to avoid issues with
> reaping children. Dean Nelson can correct me if I am wrong. I assume
> this patch is going in as part of the set which will make these threads
> clear themselves from the children
Robin Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this was originally coded with daemonize to avoid issues with
reaping children. Dean Nelson can correct me if I am wrong. I assume
this patch is going in as part of the set which will make these threads
clear themselves from the children list and
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:23:39AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
> >kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
> >
> >And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
> >a year _after_ the
Andrew Morton wrote:
Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
a year _after_ the kthread interface was made available.
This isn't good.
Andrew,
Per my
Andrew Morton wrote:
Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
a year _after_ the kthread interface was made available.
This isn't good.
Andrew,
Per my
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:23:39AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Another driver which should be fully converted to the kthread API:
kthread_stop() and kthread_should_stop().
And according to my logs, this driver was added to the tree more than
a year _after_ the kthread
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:58:44 -0600
"Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
> not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
> in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
>
> Cc: Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL
Russ, Robin,
Any objections to this patch?
Eric, please send such patches to the appropriate list, it's in ia64
file after all.
Thanks,
Jes
--- Begin Message ---
From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of
From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Tony Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by:
From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - unquoted
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Tony Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tony Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tony Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Eric
Russ, Robin,
Any objections to this patch?
Eric, please send such patches to the appropriate list, it's in ia64
file after all.
Thanks,
Jes
---BeginMessage---
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:58:44 -0600
Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch starts the xpc kernel threads using kthread_run
not a combination of kernel_thread and daemonize. Resuling
in slightly simpler and more maintainable code.
Cc: Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tony
40 matches
Mail list logo
