linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: wireless: move regulatory timeout work to power efficient workqueue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140131093531.GA25559@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:35:31 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Shaibal Dutta <shaibal.dutta@...adcom.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: wireless: move regulatory timeout work to power
 efficient workqueue

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
> "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a
> function as an API rather than the wq struct?
> 
> Something like
> 
> scheduled_delayed_work_pwr_efficient(...)?

While there are some benefits to using dedicated functions for
specific workqueues, I don't think it brings enough benefits to
justify adding dedicated API and am unlikely to add new ones.

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/