Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751618AbbFPFEB (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 01:04:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:35760 "EHLO mail-wg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750917AbbFPFDx (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 01:03:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1434402300.2170.84.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1434102153-38581-1-git-send-email-Sreekanth.Reddy@avagotech.com> <1434102153-38581-18-git-send-email-Sreekanth.Reddy@avagotech.com> <557B4923.1020608@stratus.com> <1434402300.2170.84.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:33:51 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] [SCSI] mpt3sas: Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() API instead of create_singlethread_workqueue() API From: Sreekanth Reddy To: James Bottomley Cc: Joe Lawrence , "jejb@kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Sathya Prakash , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 52 On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:35 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 16:26 +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Joe Lawrence wrote: >> > On 06/12/2015 05:42 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: >> > ... >> >> +#if defined(alloc_ordered_workqueue) >> >> + ioc->firmware_event_thread = alloc_ordered_workqueue( >> >> + ioc->firmware_event_name, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM); >> >> +#else >> >> + ioc->firmware_event_thread = create_singlethread_workqueue( >> >> ioc->firmware_event_name); >> >> +#endif >> > >> > Hi Sreekanth, >> > >> > I think the upstream version of this code can safely assume >> > alloc_ordered_workqueue is defined, no? >> >> yes, upstream version of this code can safely assume that >> alloc_ordered_workqueue is defined. >> >> While working in-house, I observed that some of the older kernels >> doesn't defined this macro, so I have added this else section. > > The driver has to be defined for the current kernel. If you maintain a > backport, that's fine, but not in the upstream driver. The reasons are > fairly pragmatic: this code in the #else clause can't be compiled so > it's just junk to the upstream driver and the static checkers will find > it and you'll attract a flock of patches removing dead code. > Accepted. I will post next version of this patch by removing the else section. Thanks, Sreekanth > James > > -- Regards, Sreekanth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/