[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b5e55c8-6790-4de5-912b-9ca23f6bd7a5@collabora.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:18:34 +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 2/9/26 23:46, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 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?
Alright, looking further at the code, apparently there is nothing
special RE the two unbound work queues. See some parts of kernel already
moved to system_dfl. Would be great is this all was clarified in the
commit message.
Acked-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists