[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160210181015.GA13270@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:10:15 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq_work: unhide irq_work_queue_on declaration on non-SMP
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:27:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +#else
> > +static inline bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> > +{
> > + return irq_work_queue(work);
> > +}
> > #endif
> I was thinking about this too, but then cpufreq will be the only user of it.
> In any case can do it at any time later. :-)
Well, there's currently only two other users of irq_work_queue_on()
anyway so that's a third of the userbase and it does seem the obvious
way to support any other future users that want to scale down to !SMP
cases painlessly.
Reviwed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
FWIW.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists