Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-43493-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
	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
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:54:04 -0300
Message-ID: <ZbgQbOqkrWFPW0Mt@LeoBras>
In-Reply-To: <ZbgPveDBk8ysmF8a@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240126010321.2550286-1-leobras@redhat.com> <ZbQozqY9qOa4Q8KR@slm.duckdns.org> <ZbQsr1pNSoiMbDrO@LeoBras> <Zbfr52x97-tLP66t@slm.duckdns.org> <Zbf8AVZaXwmExroX@LeoBras> <ZbgPveDBk8ysmF8a@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:51:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

Sure, we can go with the one you suggested.

Thanks!
Leo

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun
>