[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAofZF7cz_F9qgr7WqbORwH5iMuAO9f0SkWRQxQ4ns4o2X_xJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 12:03:51 +0100
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.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>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RAS/CEC: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 11:49 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> > It's just a "rename" from system_wq to system_percpu_wq.
>
> So why don't you call it that?
>
> Instead of beating around the bush and confusing me? :-)
>
> IOW, just do this:
>
> "Rename system_wq to system_percpu_wq as part of workqueue refactoring.
>
> For more details see the Link tag below.
>
> ...
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de"
>
> And now all those people who are interested in the details can go look it up.
I was torn between "replace" and "rename", because there is a new workqueue,
not only a rename of the old one, because for now it is still existing. :-)
BTW, thanks for your advice, I will send the v2 improving the commit log!
--
Marco Crivellari
L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product
Powered by blists - more mailing lists