Re: [PATCH] char: xillybus: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

[Eli Billauer]

Hello Marco,

Thanks for this heads-up. Frankly speaking, I wasn't aware that the said 
calls to alloc_workqueue() implicitly bind the queue to a CPU, and this 
was never my intention. I agree that the better choice is an unbound 
queue, at least in this case.

This seems to be an example for why the API change of alloc_workqueue() 
is a good idea.

As for the patch itself, it perpetuates the incorrect choice, so I vote 
against. If anything, WQ_UNBOUND should be added, but since it's going 
to be the default (soon?), maybe just let it be, and let the planned 
change in the API rectify this.

Thanks,
  Eli