[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160226154305.GJ3305@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:43:06 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/20] kthread: Better support freezable kthread
workers
On Thu 2016-02-25 14:01:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:57:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +enum {
> > + KTW_FREEZABLE = 1 << 2, /* freeze during suspend */
> > +};
>
> Weird value; what was wrong with 1 << 0 ?
Heh, the flag was inspired by
WQ_FREEZABLE = 1 << 2, /* freeze during suspend */
from include/linux/workqueue.h. But it does not really matter.
I could change it to 1 << 0 if it makes people less curious.
Thanks a lot for review,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists