[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C05A23F.90803@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:13:51 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: run emergency remount on dedicated workqueue
Hello,
On 06/02/2010 01:57 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> Please, always quote the patch title rather than a bare commit ID. The
>> usual form is
>>
>> fa4b9074cd8428958c2adf9dc0c831f46e27c193 ("buffer: make
>> invalidate_bdev() drain all percpu LRU add caches:)
>>
>> The main reason for this is so that people can more reliably and simply
>> identify the patch within a different tree. I think.
>
> Absolutely. Also, I think it's usually more readable to quote just the
> first 12 hex digits of the SHA1 - that's still going to be perfectly
> unique in any practical situation, and makes it way easier to flow the
> text to be readable.
Alright, will do so from now on.
>> gaah. Do we really want to add Yet Another Kernel Thread just for that
>> dopey sysrq-U thing?
>
> I do have to agree that it's disgusting. Can't we use an existing thread
> (slow-work?) or something like that?
The dedicated workqueue can go away with cmwq. As it's a temporary
measure until then, I wanted to keep it simple. Would it be okay if I
note that the dedicated workqueue will go away soonish in the patch
description and comment?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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