[RFC] [PATCH] UBI: convert to kthread API

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 12:04 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 19:47 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > Hello Alexander,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:50 +0100, Alexander Schmidt wrote:
> > > UBI should use the kthread API, which makes completions and signal
> > > handling go away.
> > 
> > how feasible and possible is to get rid of this UBI unit altogether?
> 
> Depends I suppose.  Is it going to make a large runtime functionality or
> performance impact if a background thread isn't running?

Sorry for vagueness, I do not mean to remove th background _process_, we
really need it. I meant to remove the UBI unit source-wise and use the
kthread calls directly. I am busy with other stuff right now and wanted
Alexander to check how much ugliness or niceness we would introduce with
that change.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)