Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:65057 "EHLO mail-qc0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751032AbaAaJff (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:35:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:35:31 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Johannes Berg Cc: Zoran Markovic , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Shaibal Dutta , "John W. Linville" , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: wireless: move regulatory timeout work to power efficient workqueue Message-ID: <20140131093531.GA25559@mtj.dyndns.org> (sfid-20140131_103541_923401_90A479EB) References: <1391123310-6425-1-git-send-email-zoran.markovic@linaro.org> <1391160084.4141.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1391160084.4141.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that > "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a > function as an API rather than the wq struct? > > Something like > > scheduled_delayed_work_pwr_efficient(...)? While there are some benefits to using dedicated functions for specific workqueues, I don't think it brings enough benefits to justify adding dedicated API and am unlikely to add new ones. Thanks. -- tejun