[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8522806-fc3a-403c-93ad-f37638870643@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 23:46:35 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com
Cc: 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>, Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: synopsys: hdmirx: replace use of system_unbound_wq
with system_dfl_wq
On 2/4/26 14:49, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 11:23 AM Marco Crivellari
> <marco.crivellari@...e.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Gentle ping.
>
> Thanks!
>
Would be good to have a reply from Tejun as I feel confused by the two
"identical" unbound workqueues. What happens if one part of kernel
queues work items to old unbound wq and other queues to new system_dfl
at the same time such that all workers are busy?
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists