From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:14:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20080109181456.GA32432@infradead.org> References: <1199820798-5289-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199820798-5289-2-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199820798-5289-3-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199820798-5289-4-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20080109173542.GA30523@infradead.org> <20080109130554.550ccde5@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:53502 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752408AbYAISPB (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:15:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080109130554.550ccde5-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:05:54PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Makes sense. My only concern is that we make sure this is behavior we > can count on in the future and not just an artifact of the current > kthread implementation. If that's the case, then I'll plan to remove it > on the next respin. It's absolutely intentional and one of the reasons why the kthread infrastructure is so much nicer than plain kthread_create :)