Re: [PATCH 0/4] Workqueue: rename system workqueue and add WQ_PERCPU

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

On 2025-05-03 10:28:30 [+0200], Marco Crivellari wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,

> This series is the follow up of the discussion from:
> 	"workqueue: Always use wq_select_unbound_cpu() for WORK_CPU_UNBOUND."
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> 
> 1)  [P 1-2] system workqueue rename:
>  
> 	system_wq is a per-CPU workqueue, but his name is not clear.
> 	system_unbound_wq is to be used when locality is not required.
> 	
> 	system_wq renamed in system_percpu_wq, while system_unbound_wq
> 	became system_dfl_wq.
> 
> 2)  [P 3] Introduction of WQ_PERCPU.
> 
> 	This patch adds a new WQ_PERCPU flag to explicitly request the legacy
> 	per-CPU behavior. WQ_UNBOUND will be removed once the migration is
> 	complete.
> 
> 	Every alloc_workqueue() caller should use one among WQ_PERCPU or
> 	WQ_UNBOUND. This is actually enforced warning if both or none of them
> 	are present at the same time.
> 
> 3)  [P 4] alloc_workqueue() callee should pass explicitly WQ_PERCPU.
> 
> 	This patch ensures that every caller that needs per-cpu workqueue
> 	will explicitly require it, using the WQ_PERCPU flag.

Sounds like a plan.
I assume the huge patches were made with coccinelle?

Sebastian