On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:41:22PM -0700, Allen wrote: > > > > I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work > > > > queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be > > > > that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important > > > > to run it in bh context. > > > > > > Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test > > > these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own > > > workqueue. > > > > > > Thanks for taking time out to review. > > > > After looking and thinking about it a bit, a BH context is still > > probably the best for this. > > > > I have tested this patch under load and various scenarios and it seems > > to work ok. So: > > > > Tested-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Or I can take this into my tree. > > > > -corey > > Thank you very much. I think it should be okay for you to carry it into > your tree. Ok, it's in my for-next tree. I fixed the directory reference, and I changed all the comments where you changed "tasklet" to "work" to instead say "workqueue". -corey > > - Allen >
