> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:jthumsh...@suse.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:18 AM
> To: Don Brace
> Cc: j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Viswas G; Mahesh Rajashekhara;
> h...@infradead.org; Scott Teel; Kevin Barnett; Justin Lindley; Scott Benesh;
> elli...@hpe.com; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] smartpqi: minor tweaks to update time support
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:29:20PM +0000, Don Brace wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:jthumsh...@suse.de]
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > The reason is that we want it run immediately (or close to immediately).
> >
> > The code could be restructured to avoid calling this function with a 0, but
> > it
> would result in more code and no benefit.
>
> OK, now I'm not sure if we talked past each other. I didn't mean
> "don't call schedule_delayed_work() with a delay of 0" but "why aren't
> you using schedule_work() instead". But maybe it's just too early in
> the morning and I didn't have enough coffee yet.
Because the two functions take different work structures as arguments:
static inline bool schedule_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork,
unsigned long delay)
static inline bool schedule_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> Thanks,
> Johannes
>
> --
> Johannes Thumshirn Storage
> jthumsh...@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
> SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
