Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5a1b3716-bcf8-8c37-2bd5-44e885de1f48@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 06:08:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: export task_work_add
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
References: <20220829040013.549212-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220829040013.549212-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/28/22 21:00, Ming Lei wrote:
> Firstly task_work_add() is used in several drivers. In ublk driver's
> usage, request batching submission can only be applied with task_work_add,
> and usually get better IOPS.
> 
> Secondly from this API's definition, the added work is always run in
> the task context, and when task is exiting, either the work is rejected
> to be added, or drained in do_exit(). In this way, not see obvious
> disadvantage or potential issue by exporting it for module's usage.
> 
> So export it, then ublk driver can get simplified, meantime with better
> performance.

If task_work_add() is exported, shouldn't task_work_cancel() be exported
too? Anyway:

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>