Hello, Chris. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > Tejun, I don't know if you have a better idea for how to mark a > work_struct as being "not used" so we can set and test it here. > Is setting entry.next to NULL good? Should we offer it as an API > in the workqueue header? Maybe simply defining a static cpumask would be cleaner? > We could wrap the whole thing in a new workqueue API too, of course > (schedule_on_each_cpu_cond_sequential??) but it seems better at this > point to wait until we find another caller with similar needs, and only > then factor the code into a new workqueue API. We can have e.g. __schedule_on_cpu(fn, pcpu_works) but yeah it seems a bit excessive at this point. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>