Re: [PATCH 1/4] WorkStruct: Separate delayable and non-delayable events.

[David Howells]

Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A consequent (if somewhat silly) name for queue_delayed_work would be
> queue_delayed_dwork, since it requires a struct dwork_struct.

Yeah...  Sometimes I wish C has type-based function overloading like C++ does.

> Are there many or frequent usages of "undelayed delayable work" like
> above, where runtime decides if a delay is necessary? If not,
> queue_dwork could be removed from the API and queue_(delayed_|d)work be
> called with delay=0.

There are a few, but not many.  Your suggestion is a good one, I think.
queue_delayed_work() can just devolve to queue_work() if delay == 0.

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/