Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-54114-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:13:42 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() to create
 ordered workqueues
Message-ID: <ZcF5tm8b9XaljHf-@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <ZcF2JaEuwMdg9kYi@slm.duckdns.org>
 <kksa5w6lgxu66h223quzkw33523zgoltqvl74lmthb4aaj7iat@rss6cnpn3t2p>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <kksa5w6lgxu66h223quzkw33523zgoltqvl74lmthb4aaj7iat@rss6cnpn3t2p>

Hello, Kent.

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:10:25PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This one doesn't actually need to be ordered - if anything, we might
> want to bump up max_active.
> 
> Tejun, can you drop this patch? If you're trying to get rid of all

Will drop it.

> WQ_UNBOUND with max_active=1 workqueues for your own auditing, either
> you or I could change that to 8.

Yeah, can you please either add a comment saying that it doesn't require
ordered execution or bump max_active?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun