On Monday, 21 May 2007 22:23, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Monday, 21 May 2007 21:33, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Raphael: > > > > > > Are we now committed to making freezable workqueues always > > > singlethreaded? Is it at all likely to change back? Or should I > > > introduce a "create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue" macro? > > > > This was done as a quick fix of an issue with one driver that started to use > > (broken) freezable workqueues when we were not watching. ;-) > > > > We are going to have multithread freezable workqueues as well, but that'll > > take some time. We've discussed this a bit with Oleg and I believe he has an > > idea of how it can be done cleanly. > > The reason I asked is because, prior to the release of 2.6.22, I sent > in a patch which added a create_singlethread_freezeable_workqueue() > macro. Now it isn't needed, since create_freezeable_workqueue() does > the same thing. Is there any reason to keep the macro? > > I'm worried that if I get rid of it and simply define the workqueue as > freezable, then at some time in the future it might turn into a > multithread workqueue without my knowledge. If we introduce multithread freezable workqueues again, we'll have to review all current users of create_freezeable_workqueue() anyway to see whether or not they need to use a singlethread workqueue. Still, if you added a comment saying that your workqueue had to be singlethread, that would certainly help. ;-) Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
