> > > > > > > > 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". > Thank you very much for fixing it. - Allen
