2014-08-26, 22:02:08 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> [...]
>
> Tested-by: Sabrina Dubroca
Forgot to mention, this applies to both versions of the patch.
--
Sabrina
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
2014-08-26, 14:49:18 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:54:53 +0200, Samuel Thibault said:
> > This changeset defers the second led_trigger_event call into a
> > workqueue, which avoids the nested locking altogether. This does
> > not prevent the user from shooting hims
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:01:35 +0200, Johannes Berg said:
> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 03:54 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > + vt_led_wq = alloc_workqueue("input_leds", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> > + if (!vt_led_wq)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Does this really need a separate workqueue rather than
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:54:53 +0200, Samuel Thibault said:
> This changeset defers the second led_trigger_event call into a
> workqueue, which avoids the nested locking altogether. This does
> not prevent the user from shooting himself in the foot by creating a
> vt::capsl <-> vt-capsl loop, but th
Johannes Berg, le Tue 26 Aug 2014 10:01:35 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 03:54 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > + vt_led_wq = alloc_workqueue("input_leds", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> > + if (!vt_led_wq)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Does this really need a separate workqueue rather
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 03:54 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> + vt_led_wq = alloc_workqueue("input_leds", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> + if (!vt_led_wq)
> + return -ENOMEM;
Does this really need a separate workqueue rather than just using
schedule_work()? There doesn't seem to be much poin
6 matches
Mail list logo
