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: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20120823084325.GA5418@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20120822234057.GR19212@google.com> <1345708607_3773@CP5-2952> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1345708607_3773@CP5-2952> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Chris Wilson Cc: Tejun Heo , Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48