From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>,
Jeff Chen <jeff.chen_1@nxp.com>,
Stefan Kerkmann <s.kerkmann@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: libertas: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:33:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b64db199e6e1cd09b26f44d2e8cc1bec43b163fd.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250922102407.186660-2-marco.crivellari@suse.com>
On Mon, 2025-09-22 at 12:24 +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
>
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU.
Which I guess forces a decision, and should be kept for a few releases,
but ... is "keep what it did" really the right decision in all places?
It seems to me that for instance for libertas here, there really is no
reason to be CPU bound?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-22 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-22 10:24 [PATCH 0/1] wifi: libertas: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users Marco Crivellari
2025-09-22 10:24 ` [PATCH 1/1] wifi: libertas: WQ_PERCPU added " Marco Crivellari
2025-09-22 11:33 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2025-09-22 13:32 ` Marco Crivellari
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b64db199e6e1cd09b26f44d2e8cc1bec43b163fd.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=francesco.dolcini@toradex.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jeff.chen_1@nxp.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@treblig.org \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=s.kerkmann@pengutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox