From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 01:14:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20120823231410.GF5418@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20120822234057.GR19212@google.com> <1345708607_3773@CP5-2952> <20120823084325.GA5418@phenom.ffwll.local> <20120823192227.GB14962@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120823192227.GB14962@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22:27PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of > > > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson > > > > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter for merging through any > > tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT > > removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next? > > I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next. > WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway. Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48