linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: replace use of system_unbound_wq with system_dfl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAofZF7nfB881LL4qry+L2Z7TNsBx+TWgELv1aKEUpkV2H=pAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:06:02 +0100
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Krzysztof Karas <krzysztof.karas@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, 
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, 
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: replace use of system_unbound_wq with system_dfl_wq

Hi Krzysztof,

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 8:31 AM Krzysztof Karas
<krzysztof.karas@...el.com> wrote:
>[...]
> "This patch continues the effort to refactor worqueue APIs,
> which has begun with the change introducing new workqueues:
> commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag").".
>
> Otherwise, the sentence "The above change to the Workqueue API
> has been introduced by" to me suggests that you are trying to
> re-introduce or fix something that already exists in the kernel.

Makes sense, thanks for the correction.
I also realize that if I were put that sentence after:

> This lack of consistency cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.

would have been better, anyhow (maybe it had already the correct meaning).

Thank you!

-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product