On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 7:04P -0500, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Linus. > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:19:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah, that's how the dm-crypt got converted. The patch just before this one. > This one probably can be converted the same way. I don't see the work item > being re-initialized. It probably is better to initialize the work item > together with the enclosing struct and then just queue it when needed. Sounds good. > Mikulas, I couldn't decide what to do with the "try_verify_in_tasklet" > option and just decided to do the minimal thing hoping that someone more > familiar with the code can take over the actual conversion. How much of user > interface commitment is that? Should it be renamed or would it be better to > leave it be? cryptsetup did add support for it, so I think it worthwhile to preserve the option; but it'd be fine to have it just be a backward compatible alias for a more appropriately named option? Mike
