Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1588348912-24781-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wiGhZ_5xCRyUN+yMFdneKMQ-S8fBvdBp8o-JWPV4v+nVw@mail.gmail.com> <20200501182154.GG5462@mtj.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200501182154.GG5462@mtj.thefacebook.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 11:30:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgB=PDdMX=uwsSrcERgSyyNW83Hj=WTWWjKp9dyriEzVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] allow multiple kthreadd's
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:22 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Looks fine to me too. I don't quite understand the usecase tho. It looks
> like all it's being used for is to tag some kthreads as belonging to the
> same group. Can't that be done with kthread_data()?

I _think_ Bruce wants the signal handling unification too, because
nfsd wants to react to being shut down with signals.

But you're right, more explanation of why nfsd wants/needs a separate
grouping is a good idea.

                    Linus