Message-ID: <4DAC9897.2040606@fusionio.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:01:27 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
        "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add blk_run_queue_async
References: <20110418092647.GB3837@infradead.org> <BANLkTikOKji3_p+bqMO4zoSnXFunEdue0g@mail.gmail.com> <20110418195929.GA9650@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110418195929.GA9650@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 922
Lines: 24

On 2011-04-18 21:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 03:55:04PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> +{
>>> + ? ? ? if (likely(!blk_queue_stopped(q)))
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? queue_delayed_work(kblockd_workqueue, &q->delay_work, 0);
>>
>> I know Jens already queued this up 'for-linus' but why not use
>> kblockd_schedule_work(q, &q->delay_work)?
> 
> I don't see what that would buy us.  If we'd absolutely want a wrapper
> a blk_delay_queue(q, 0) in Jens' current tree would do it now that is
> has been fixed up to use the kblockd workqueue.

I thought about changing it to use that, but I don't think there's any
point in doing that to be honest.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/