On Fri, 2023-05-05 at 12:52 -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> trans_pcie->rba.alloc_wq only hosts a single work item and thus doesn't need
> explicit concurrency limit. Let's use the default @max_active. This doesn't
> cost anything and clearly expresses that @max_active doesn't matter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Avraham Stern <avraham.stern@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mordechay Goodstein <mordechay.goodstein@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Haim, Dreyfuss" <haim.dreyfuss@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Sure, that seems fine too.
Acked-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
For whatever that's worth, might better to get Gregory ;-)
johannes
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c
> @@ -3577,7 +3577,7 @@ struct iwl_trans *iwl_trans_pcie_alloc(s
> init_waitqueue_head(&trans_pcie->imr_waitq);
>
> trans_pcie->rba.alloc_wq = alloc_workqueue("rb_allocator",
> - WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 1);
> + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> if (!trans_pcie->rba.alloc_wq) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto out_free_trans;
>
