Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265950AbUFOUl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:41:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265944AbUFOUld (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:41:33 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:41733 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265946AbUFOUlH (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:41:07 -0400 To: Dean Nelson cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: calling kthread_create() from interrupt thread References: <27qex-5LX-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <27qoT-5Uy-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <27qxQ-67a-27@gated-at.bofh.it> From: Andi Kleen Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:41:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <27qxQ-67a-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (Dean Nelson's message of "Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:10:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 638 Lines: 17 Dean Nelson writes: > > As mentioned above, it is possible for this "simple" function to sleep/block > for an indefinite period of time. I was under the impression that one > couldn't block a work queue thread for an indefinite period of time. Am > I mistaken? You could create your own work queue upfront. Blocking an generic workqueue for a long time is indeed nasty. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/