[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=zhgrUh-Xcz2kqJRsdxmTKXE-hdLE52ya+5PDTTuNqN_Pwjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:26:29 +0530
From: Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...atus.com>
Cc: "jejb@...nel.org" <jejb@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
Sathya Prakash <Sathya.Prakash@...gotech.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] [SCSI] mpt3sas: Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() API
instead of create_singlethread_workqueue() API
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...atus.com> wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 05:42 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
> ...
>> +#if defined(alloc_ordered_workqueue)
>> + ioc->firmware_event_thread = alloc_ordered_workqueue(
>> + ioc->firmware_event_name, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM);
>> +#else
>> + ioc->firmware_event_thread = create_singlethread_workqueue(
>> ioc->firmware_event_name);
>> +#endif
>
> Hi Sreekanth,
>
> I think the upstream version of this code can safely assume
> alloc_ordered_workqueue is defined, no?
yes, upstream version of this code can safely assume that
alloc_ordered_workqueue is defined.
While working in-house, I observed that some of the older kernels
doesn't defined this macro, so I have added this else section.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Joe
--
Regards,
Sreekanth
--
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