[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZbgQbOqkrWFPW0Mt@LeoBras>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:54:04 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed_work
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:51:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:26:57PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > Isn't that still the same number of add_timer[_on]() calls?
> >
> > Yeah, sorry about this, what I meant was: If we are ok on calling
> > add_timer_on() multiple times, I would rather go with the above version, as
> > I think it's better for readability.
>
> I don't know. It looks more verbose and less clear to me in that it isn't
> immediately clear that every branch ends with timer being added. But this is
> really minor, so unless you have a really strong opinion against the
> suggested structured, can we just do that?
Sure, we can go with the one you suggested.
Thanks!
Leo
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists