[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qzBRDfUh1vN6qW6BFuFz_qcuaEOR13Ojx2CzC_+CHxUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:21:05 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] lib/vsprintf: Initialize vsprintf's pointer hash
once the random core is ready.
On 9/28/22, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>> I could replace "system_unbound_wq" with "system_wq" when
>> pushing. Is anybody against it, please?
>
> so schedule_delayed_work() then?
> I don't mind at all. I used that one just because serialisation is not
> needed and neither is the CPU important.
Indeed, given that this very much is unbound, I think Sebastian's
original patch makes most sense.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists