Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-43488-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:09 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on
 unbounded queue_delayed_work
Message-ID: <ZbgPveDBk8ysmF8a@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240126010321.2550286-1-leobras@redhat.com>
 <ZbQozqY9qOa4Q8KR@slm.duckdns.org>
 <ZbQsr1pNSoiMbDrO@LeoBras>
 <Zbfr52x97-tLP66t@slm.duckdns.org>
 <Zbf8AVZaXwmExroX@LeoBras>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zbf8AVZaXwmExroX@LeoBras>

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:26:57PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Isn't that still the same number of add_timer[_on]() calls?
> 
> Yeah, sorry about this, what I meant was: If we are ok on calling 
> add_timer_on() multiple times, I would rather go with the above version, as 
> I think it's better for readability.

I don't know. It looks more verbose and less clear to me in that it isn't
immediately clear that every branch ends with timer being added. But this is
really minor, so unless you have a really strong opinion against the
suggested structured, can we just do that?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun