Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn'tmigrate the kworker to another CPU

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So, with work_on_cpu() reimplementation just posted[1], we can do the
> following instead.  Functionally it's about the same but less ugly.
> Ugly as it may be, I think the previous open coded version is better
> suited as a fix and for -stable.  Thoughts?

I have to say, since the work_on_cpu() reimplementation seems to
seriously simplify the code, and removes more lines than it adds, and
makes this patch smaller than your original patch, I would personally
prefer this approach instead anyway.

It's what we want long-range, isn't it? And it's smaller and simpler.
Sure, it might be a *conceptually* bigger change, but since it's both
prettier and *practically* smaller, I do like it more. Even at this
stage of -rc (and even for backporting to -stable).

Can we get some quick testing of this two-patch series from the people
who saw the original K8 cpufreq issue? Duncan?

           Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/