Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759839AbXFVRYM (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:24:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760010AbXFVRXx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:23:53 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:52885 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759999AbXFVRXw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:23:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:16:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Steven Rostedt cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Hellwig , john stultz , Oleg Nesterov , "Paul E. McKenney" , Dipankar Sarma , "David S. Miller" , matthew.wilcox@hp.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues In-Reply-To: <20070622040014.234651401@goodmis.org> Message-ID: References: <20070622040014.234651401@goodmis.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1745 Lines: 42 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I just want to state that tasklets served their time well. But it's time > to give them an honorable discharge. So lets get rid of tasklets and > given them a standing salute as they leave :-) Well, independently of whether we actually discharge them or not, I do tend to always like things that split independent concepts up (whether they then end up being _implemented_ independently of each other or not is a separate issue). So patches 1-4 all look fine to me. In fact, 5 looks ok too. Whether we actually then want to do 6 is another matter. I think we'd need some measuring and discussion about that. I'm absolutely 100% sure that we do *not* want to be in a situation where we have two different implementations of tasklets, and just keep the CONFIG variable and let people just choose one or the other. So imnsho doing #6 is really something that makes sense only in a "let's measure this and decide which implementation is actually the better one", _not_ in the sense of merging it into the standard kernel and letting them fight it out in the long run. But I'd happily merge 1-4 regardless after 2.6.22 is out. Leaving patch 6 as a "only makes sense after we actually have some numbers about it", and patch 5 is a "could go either way" as far as I'm concerned (ie I could merge it together with the 1-4 series, but I think it's equally valid to just see it as a companion to 6). Does that make sense to people? Linus - 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/