[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130227151036.GC22383@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:10:36 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
Liviu.Dudau@....com, charles.garcia-tobin@....com,
rickard.andersson@...ricsson.com, fabio.baltieri@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: define mod_scheduled_delayed_work[_on]()
helpers
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:59:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> int execute_in_process_context(work_func_t fn, struct execute_work *);
> @@ -465,6 +466,11 @@ static inline long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
> long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg);
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> +#define mod_scheduled_delayed_work_on(cpu, dwork, delay) \
> + mod_delayed_work_on(cpu, system_wq, dwork, delay)
> +#define mod_scheduled_delayed_work(dwork, delay) \
> + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, dwork, delay)
So, the intention is to just let people use system_wq. We no longer
have single system-wide workqueue and we don't wanna add different
variants matching each system wq. schedule_work() and friends were
already there so I'm leaving those alone but I don't really want to
add another set of rather meaningless wrappers. Please just use
system_wq with mode_delayed_work*().
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