[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFFozq_dzk8Qn7XN@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:08:30 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...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
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...
Thanks.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists