[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFG5-qBWHy-LeLGS@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 08:54:50 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Workqueue: add WQ_PERCPU, system_dfl_wq and
system_percpu_wq
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 08:14:48AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 03:08:30PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 08:35:32AM -1000, Tejun Heo a écrit :
> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 03:35:28PM +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> > > > Marco Crivellari (3):
> > > > Workqueue: add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq
> > > > Workqueue: add new WQ_PERCPU flag
> > > > [Doc] Workqueue: add WQ_PERCPU
> > >
> > > Applied 1-3 to wq/for-6.17. I applied as-is but the third patch didn't need
> > > to be separate. Maybe something to consider for future.
> >
> > If this is for the next merge window, I guess the easiest is to wait for it
> > before sending patches to other subsystems to convert them?
> >
> > I guess we could shortcut that with providing a branch that other subsystems
> > could pull from but that doesn't look convenient...
>
> Oh yeah, I said I was gonna do that and promptly forgot. I'll set up a
> separate branch based on v6.15.
Okay, I folded the doc patch into the second one and applied them to the
following branch.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git WQ_PERCPU
This is v6.15 + only the two patches and should be easy to pull into any
devel branch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists