[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160506205307.GB15729@sky.smuckle.net>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:53:07 -0700
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq
callbacks on remote CPUs
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 04:08:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
...
> > Any clue, why we don't have a non-SMP version of irq_work_queue_on(), Which can
> > simply call irq_work_queue() ?
>
> Because nobody else needs it?
>
> But I agree that it would be nicer to add the stub to irq_work.h.
I had wondered the same myself and figured there had to be a good reason why it didn't exist.
But if not, and it's preferred to add it, I'll go ahead and so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists