> Hello,
>
> On 07/24/2010 09:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> I've created kthread_worker in wq#for-next tree and already converted
> >> ivtv to use it. Once this lands in mainline, I think converting vhost
> >> to use it would be better choice. kthread worker code uses basically
> >> the same logic used in the vhost_workqueue code but is better
> >> organized and documented. So, I think it would be better to stick
> >> with the original implementation, as otherwise we're likely to just
> >> decrease test coverage without much gain.
> >>
> >>
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git;a=commitdiff;h=b56c0d8937e665a27d9...
> >
> > Sure, if we keep using workqueue. But I'd like to investigate this
> > direction a bit more because there's discussion to switching from kthread to
> > regular threads altogether.
>
> Hmmm? It doesn't have much to do with workqueue. kthread_worker is a
> simple wrapper around kthread. It now assumes kthread but changing it
> to be useable with any thread shouldn't be too hard. Wouldn't that be
> better?
