From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking work. Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:08:22 +0200 Message-ID: <201004292308.22457.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1272429119-12103-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <201004282308.10751.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100429185851.GA13862@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100429185851.GA13862@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 29 April 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On 04/28/2010 09:40 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > >> +int schedule_suspend_blocking_work(struct suspend_blocking_work *work) > > > >> +{ > > > >> ... > > > >> + ret = schedule_work(&work->work); > > > > > > > > Off-topic. We should probably export keventd_wq to avoid the duplications > > > > like this. > > > > > > Yeah, had about the same thought. cmwq exports it so I didn't suggest > > > it at this point but then again we don't really know whether or when > > > that series is going in > > > > As soon as there are no major objections. At least to my tree. > > > > > so it might be a good idea to make that change now. Hmm... > > > > I'd rather like a follow-up patch changing that, if poss. > > Confused. Rafael, do you mean you dislike this change now? No, I'm fine with the change itself, but I wouldn't like to make the suspend blockers patchset depend on something in a different tree. If it's not the case, I have no objections. Rafael