On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 13:32, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't know, so just did the dumb thing. If the caller always guarantees
> that the work items are never queued at the same time, reusing is fine.
So the reason I thought it would be a good cleanup to introduce that
"atomic" workqueue thing (now "bh") was that this case literally has a
switch between "use tasklets' or "use workqueues".
So it's not even about "reusing" the workqueue, it's literally a
matter of making it always just use workqueues, and the switch then
becomes just *which* workqueue to use - system or bh.
In fact, I suspect there is very little reason ever to *not* just use
the bh one, and even the switch could be removed.
Because I think the only reason the "workqueue of tasklet" choice
existed in the first place was that workqueues were the "proper" data
structure, and the tasklet case was added later as a latency hack, and
everybody knew that tasklets were deprecated.
Linus
