Gregory, we seem to more or less agree with each other, but still...
On 08/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you
are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad.
Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered"
issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that
was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich
may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and
"deprecate" such a code.
The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular"
queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the
priority of work_struct.
Oleg.
-
