On Thursday 29 April 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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?
No, I'm fine with the change itself, but I wouldn't like to make the suspend
blockers patchset depend on something in a different tree. If it's not the
case, I have no objections.
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
