On 04/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On 04/28/2010 09:40 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >> +int schedule_suspend_blocking_work(struct suspend_blocking_work *work)
> > >> +{
> > >> ...
> > >> + ret = schedule_work(&work->work);
> > >
> > > Off-topic. We should probably export keventd_wq to avoid the duplications
> > > like this.
> >
> > Yeah, had about the same thought. cmwq exports it so I didn't suggest
> > it at this point but then again we don't really know whether or when
> > that series is going in
>
> As soon as there are no major objections. At least to my tree.
>
> > so it might be a good idea to make that change now. Hmm...
>
> I'd rather like a follow-up patch changing that, if poss.
Confused. Rafael, do you mean you dislike this change now?
I don't really care, this change is trivial. But to me it makes more
sense to push the trivial/simple changes ahead. Unless they really
complicate the maintainging of the pending cmwq changes.
Hmm... Speaking about keventd_wq, I just noticed flush_delayed_work()
needs the fix:
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ void flush_delayed_work(struct delayed_w
{
if (del_timer_sync(&dwork->timer)) {
struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
- cwq = wq_per_cpu(keventd_wq, get_cpu());
+ cwq = wq_per_cpu(get_wq_data(&dwork->work)->wq, get_cpu());
__queue_work(cwq, &dwork->work);
put_cpu();
}
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
