On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/16/2015 01:37 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
>> Created a thread using alloc_ordered_workqueue() API in order to process
>> the works from firmware Work-queue sequentially instead of
>> create_singlethread_workqueue() API.
>>
>> Changes in v1:
>> No need to check for backport compatibility in the upstream kernel.
>> so removing the else section where driver use
>> create_singlethread_workqueue() API if alloc_ordered_workqueue() API is
>> not defined, This else section is not required since in the latest upstream
>> kernel this alloc_ordered_workqueue() API is always defined.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sreekanth Reddy <Sreekanth.Reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c
>> index b848458..7e5926c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c
>> @@ -8085,8 +8085,8 @@ _scsih_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>> /* event thread */
>> snprintf(ioc->firmware_event_name, sizeof(ioc->firmware_event_name),
>> "fw_event%d", ioc->id);
>> - ioc->firmware_event_thread = create_singlethread_workqueue(
>> - ioc->firmware_event_name);
>> + ioc->firmware_event_thread = alloc_ordered_workqueue(
>> + ioc->firmware_event_name, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM);
>> if (!ioc->firmware_event_thread) {
>> pr_err(MPT3SAS_FMT "failure at %s:%d/%s()!\n",
>> ioc->name, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__);
>>
>
> Hi Sreekanth,
>
> Is this change still needed after e09c2c2954684 workqueue: apply
> __WQ_ORDERED to create_singlethread_workqueue() ? (3.17+)
I won't say that it is compulsory required, but I feel it is better if
these changes are included. since initially we thought that thread
created by using create_singlethread_workqueue() will process the
works sequentially but in-between it has broken and then it is fixed
by Tejun. So I thought it is better to directly use the
alloc_ordered_workqueue() as create_singlethead_workqueue() API also
invoked the same API.
>
> In upstream, this change looks cosmetic (unless Tejun has a preference
> for one over the other), but maybe converting to alloc_ordered_workqueue
> keeps your in house version in closer sync?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Joe
--
Regards,
Sreekanth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
