Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] irq_work: Make self-IPIs optable

2012-11-06 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2012/10/29 Steven Rostedt : > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 14:28 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> On irq work initialization, let the user choose to define it >> as "lazy" or not. "Lazy" means that we don't want to send >> an IPI (provided the arch can anyway) when we enqueue this >> work but we

Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] irq_work: Make self-IPIs optable

2012-11-06 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2012/10/29 Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org: On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 14:28 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: On irq work initialization, let the user choose to define it as lazy or not. Lazy means that we don't want to send an IPI (provided the arch can anyway) when we enqueue this work but

Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] irq_work: Make self-IPIs optable

2012-10-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 14:28 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On irq work initialization, let the user choose to define it > as "lazy" or not. "Lazy" means that we don't want to send > an IPI (provided the arch can anyway) when we enqueue this > work but we rather prefer to wait for the next

Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] irq_work: Make self-IPIs optable

2012-10-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 14:28 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: On irq work initialization, let the user choose to define it as lazy or not. Lazy means that we don't want to send an IPI (provided the arch can anyway) when we enqueue this work but we rather prefer to wait for the next timer tick