Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1469970 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-25 10:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-25 14:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v6 20/20] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread to kthread worker API Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-25 10:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v6 20/20] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread to kthread worker API Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-25 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v6 20/20] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread to kthread worker API Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> - 2016-08-25 14:00 +0200
| From | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 10:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 20/20] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread to kthread worker API |
| Message-ID | <s9YmB-71V-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 2016-04-14 17:14:39 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > Kthreads are currently implemented as an infinite loop. Each > has its own variant of checks for terminating, freezing, > awakening. In many cases it is unclear to say in which state > it is and sometimes it is done a wrong way. What is the status of this? This is the last email I received and it is from April. Sebastian
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 13:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sa1kt-qZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1469970 |
On 2016-08-25 13:37:08 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > There were still some discussions about the kthread worker API. > Anyway, the needed kthread API changes are in Andrew's -mm tree now > and will be hopefully included in 4.9. Thanks for the update. > I did not want to send the patches using the API before the API > changes are upstream. But I could send the two intel_powerclamp > patches now if you are comfortable with having them on top of > the -mm tree or linux-next. I am refreshing my hotplug queue and stumbled over my old powerclamp patch. Please send them (offline) so I can have a look :) And I add a note for powerclaml to be v4.9 or so. > Best Regards, > Petr Sebastian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sa1kt-qZ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1469970 |
On Thu 2016-08-25 10:33:17, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-04-14 17:14:39 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > > Kthreads are currently implemented as an infinite loop. Each > > has its own variant of checks for terminating, freezing, > > awakening. In many cases it is unclear to say in which state > > it is and sometimes it is done a wrong way. > > What is the status of this? This is the last email I received and it is > from April. There were still some discussions about the kthread worker API. Anyway, the needed kthread API changes are in Andrew's -mm tree now and will be hopefully included in 4.9. I did not want to send the patches using the API before the API changes are upstream. But I could send the two intel_powerclamp patches now if you are comfortable with having them on top of the -mm tree or linux-next. Best Regards, Petr
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web