[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160113095353.5231c28f@yairi>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:53:53 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/22] thermal/intel_powerclamp: Convert the kthread
to kthread worker API
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:18:31 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > unsigned int __read_mostly freeze_timeout_msecs = 20 *
> > MSEC_PER_SEC;
>
> You are right. And it does not make sense to add an extra
> freezer-specific code if not really necessary.
>
> Otherwise, I will keep the conversion into the kthread worker as is
> for now. Please, let me know if you are strongly against the split
> into the two works.
I am fine with the split now.
Another question, are you planning to convert acpi_pad.c as well? It
uses kthread similar way.
Jacob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists