[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180522073618.GN12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:36:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@...aro.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
Ravi Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] efi: Introduce efi_queue_work() to queue any
efi_runtime_service() on efi_rts_wq
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:13:03PM -0700, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> + /* \
> + * queue_work() returns 0 if work was already on queue, \
> + * _ideally_ this should never happen. \
> + */ \
> + if (queue_work(efi_rts_wq, &efi_rts_work.work)) \
> + flush_work(&efi_rts_work.work); \
Since you're _always_ going to wait for it, it is _much_ cheaper to put
a completion in your actual work and wait for that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists