John, > -----Original Message----- > From: John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:42 PM > To: Nilesh Javali <njavali@xxxxxxxxxxx>; martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream <GR-QLogic- > Storage-Upstream@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Anil Gurumurthy > <agurumurthy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Shreyas Deodhar <sdeodhar@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] qla2xxx: Observed call trace in > smp_processor_id() > > On 10/08/2023 12:22, Nilesh Javali wrote: > >> So isn't something like > >> queue_work_on(raw_smp_processor_id(), ha->wq, &qpair->q_work) > same as > >> queue_work(ha->wq, &qpair->q_work)? > >> > >> I see that queue_work() already has the raw_smp_processor_id() call. > > In fact queue_work uses queue_work_on that has > raw_smp_processor_id. > > So, qla2x using queue_work_on with raw_smp_processor_id should be > okay, > > Using queue_work(), rather than queue_work_on() with > raw_smp_processor_id(), would be simpler. Simpler is generally better. > And I see no advantage in using queue_work_on() with > raw_smp_processor_id() (over queue_work()). > > Thanks, > John I will send the change of using queue_work as a separate patch. And send v3 of the series with this patch skipped. Thanks for the review once again. Thanks, Nilesh
