Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue for v2.6.36

From: Stefan Richter
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 13:56:04 EST

Daniel Walker wrote:
> I haven't seen anything that shows your adding back the same
> expressiveness that your removing .. So I still don't think this should
> be merged.

Do you mean by expressiveness the ability to hack around a suboptimally
working driver in userland (by requiring the administrator to play with
kernel thread priorities of dedicated worker threads)? Is it known
whether this driver/ these drivers still require this hack after Tejun's
patch set is applied? If yes, how about finding someone to fix this
driver for good. Meanwhile, let's gets rid of the problem of having
both too few and too many workers in countless present usages of the
workqueue API please.
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- =--- --=--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at