On December 10, 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:02:41 +0100 Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] 

wrote:

quoted

Le jeudi 09 d__cembre 2010 __ 22:32 -0800, Andrew Morton a __crit :

quoted

but but but.  The name "kthread_create_on_cpu" sucks.  It's plain
wrong.

Okay you are right Andrew ;) I dont have better idea for the moment.

Dunno.  kthread_create_with_memory_on_node() :)

How's about kthread_create_for_node()?  That's sufficiently vague to
not mislead readers into thinking that it schedules the thread on that
CPU and leaves room in the namespace for a real kthread_create_on_cpu()
(which we could well end up creating).

kthread_create_node_mem()?

Just a kernel newb here, how about kthread_create_from_cpu ? unless that has 
some connotations I'm not aware of.

quoted

Note that all callers I converted really create one kthread per cpu, not
per node. They didnt care of node affinity, only me :)

kthread_create_on_node() seems misleading to me (some cpus run on
memoryless nodes)

True, but what we're doing here is specifying on which node the
kthread's memory resources should reside - we need to do that even for
CPUs which live on memoryless nodes.

--
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/

-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom
thomas@fjellstrom.ca