On 2023/03/06 20:05, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2023, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>> On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
>>> {
>>> int err, i;
>>>
>>> + i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0);
>>
>> Oops. I forgot to add
>>
>> if (!i915_wq)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> here. But I'd like to wait for your response for a while before submitting
>> v2 patch.
>
> Looks like accounting for every schedule_work() and friends that we have
> is pretty difficult at this point, so I agree going for a local
> workqueue and flushing that is probably the way to go. Work specific
> cleanups can follow.
>
> However, we really don't want to add new module globals, not for this,
> not for anything. So for most things it would have to be i915 device
> specific. And that, in turn, would have to be two workqueues, one for
> display, one for other stuff. Don't want to mix the two.
>
Thank you for responding. Please go that way.
(I'm not familiar enough to propose a patch.)
