Re: [git:v4l-dvb/other] V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue

Re: [git:v4l-dvb/other] V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue

[Andy Walls]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 03:51 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> This is an automatic generated email to let you know that the following patch were queued at the 
> http://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-dvb.git tree:
> 
> Subject: V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue
> Author:  Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Date:    Mon Jun 28 18:03:50 2010 -0300
> 
> Upcoming workqueue updates will no longer guarantee fixed workqueue to
> worker kthread association, so giving RT priority to the irq worker
> won't work.  Use kthread_worker which guarantees specific kthread
> association instead.  This also makes setting the priority cleaner.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
> Acked-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>

Mauro,

Please revert this or keep it from going upstream.

It relies on at least on other patch by Tejun.  If this patch is
committed alone to the ivtv driver, it will break compilation of ivtv.

I'm OK with Tejun getting this patch committed upstream together with
his complete workqueue patchset.  Otherwise we''ll have some
coordination to go through when the workqueue patches go upstream.  That
could be hard for everyone, since my response time lately has been
rather slow.

Regards,
Andy

Re: [git:v4l-dvb/other] V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue

[Andy Walls]

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 09:53 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 10-07-2010 09:33, Andy Walls escreveu:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 03:51 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> This is an automatic generated email to let you know that the following patch were queued at the 
> >> http://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-dvb.git tree:
> >>
> >> Subject: V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue
> >> Author:  Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> >> Date:    Mon Jun 28 18:03:50 2010 -0300
> >>
> >> Upcoming workqueue updates will no longer guarantee fixed workqueue to
> >> worker kthread association, so giving RT priority to the irq worker
> >> won't work.  Use kthread_worker which guarantees specific kthread
> >> association instead.  This also makes setting the priority cleaner.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
> >> Acked-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Mauro,
> > 
> > Please revert this or keep it from going upstream.
> 
> I already did it locally at commit 635c644cdd1557a69e99bda0dcadaf006b66d432.
> I just forgot to push it to the linuxtv repository ;)
> I just updated upstream with this patch and another set of commits I did here.
> 

:(

Hmmm.  I should really read my personal email more frequently than every
few days.

Is there anything you need me to do to help fix this? Provide my SOB on
a reversion patch?  Submit a reversion patch with an explanation and my
SOB?

Let me know.  I should be available most of today (EDT timezone).

Regards,
Andy

Re: [git:v4l-dvb/other] V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em 10-07-2010 10:07, Andy Walls escreveu:
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 09:53 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em 10-07-2010 09:33, Andy Walls escreveu:
>>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 03:51 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> This is an automatic generated email to let you know that the following patch were queued at the 
>>>> http://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-dvb.git tree:
>>>>
>>>> Subject: V4L/DVB: ivtv: use kthread_worker instead of workqueue
>>>> Author:  Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>>>> Date:    Mon Jun 28 18:03:50 2010 -0300
>>>>
>>>> Upcoming workqueue updates will no longer guarantee fixed workqueue to
>>>> worker kthread association, so giving RT priority to the irq worker
>>>> won't work.  Use kthread_worker which guarantees specific kthread
>>>> association instead.  This also makes setting the priority cleaner.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
>>>> Acked-by: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Mauro,
>>>
>>> Please revert this or keep it from going upstream.
>>
>> I already did it locally at commit 635c644cdd1557a69e99bda0dcadaf006b66d432.
>> I just forgot to push it to the linuxtv repository ;)
>> I just updated upstream with this patch and another set of commits I did here.
>>
> 
> :(
> 
> Hmmm.  I should really read my personal email more frequently than every
> few days.
> 
> Is there anything you need me to do to help fix this? Provide my SOB on
> a reversion patch?  Submit a reversion patch with an explanation and my
> SOB?
> 
> Let me know.  I should be available most of today (EDT timezone).

For linux-next, I'll probably just send both patches, since it makes my life easier, but
my intention is to just remove the two patches at the next submission window.
So, feel free to ping me just after 2.6.35 launch, if you want me to remember about that ;)

Cheers,
Mauro.