[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004292308.22457.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:08:22 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking work.
On Thursday 29 April 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On 04/28/2010 09:40 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >> +int schedule_suspend_blocking_work(struct suspend_blocking_work *work)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> ...
> > > >> + ret = schedule_work(&work->work);
> > > >
> > > > Off-topic. We should probably export keventd_wq to avoid the duplications
> > > > like this.
> > >
> > > Yeah, had about the same thought. cmwq exports it so I didn't suggest
> > > it at this point but then again we don't really know whether or when
> > > that series is going in
> >
> > As soon as there are no major objections. At least to my tree.
> >
> > > so it might be a good idea to make that change now. Hmm...
> >
> > I'd rather like a follow-up patch changing that, if poss.
>
> Confused. Rafael, do you mean you dislike this change now?
No, I'm fine with the change itself, but I wouldn't like to make the suspend
blockers patchset depend on something in a different tree. If it's not the
case, I have no objections.
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists