On 12 March 2013 07:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Do I assume correctly that you have withdrawn this patch?
Yes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordo
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 04:59:10 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The only difference between schedule_delayed_work[_on]() and
> queue_delayed_work[_on]() is the workqueue, work is scheduled on. We may need
> to
> modify the delay for works queued with schedule_delayed_work[_on]() calls and
> thus
Hello, Viresh.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:44:52PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> To keep things aligned probably i should replace schedule_work() with
> queue_work() and use system_wq there too..
Yeah, that probably is more preferable. There are codes like the
following in kernel and they always i
On 27 February 2013 20:40, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, the intention is to just let people use system_wq. We no longer
> have single system-wide workqueue and we don't wanna add different
> variants matching each system wq. schedule_work() and friends were
> already there so I'm leaving those alone b
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:59:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> int execute_in_process_context(work_func_t fn, struct execute_work *);
> @@ -465,6 +466,11 @@ static inline long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long
> (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
> long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *),
On 27 February 2013 16:59, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The only difference between schedule_delayed_work[_on]() and
> queue_delayed_work[_on]() is the workqueue, work is scheduled on. We may need
> to
> modify the delay for works queued with schedule_delayed_work[_on]() calls and
> thus adding these he
6 matches
Mail list logo
