Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:02:08 +0700
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Btrfs Mailing List <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Fsdevel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] Documentation: btrfs: Document the influence
 of wq_cpu_set to thread_pool option
Message-ID: <Y/x/oD+byOu092fF@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
References: <20230226162639.20559-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <20230226162639.20559-3-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <Y/wSXlp3vTEA6eo3@debian.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/wSXlp3vTEA6eo3@debian.me>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:15:58AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Why will the behavior be introduced in such future version (6.5)?

It's not like it has been staged for the next merge window. It's still
in an RFC state. The changes are not trivial and need further review.

I don't know if it can hit the next merge window. As such, I picked a
long distance for this proposal. If it ends up going upstream sooner, we
can change this document.

-- 
Ammar Faizi