From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758865AbcEFUxN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 May 2016 16:53:13 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:35657 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758275AbcEFUxM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 May 2016 16:53:12 -0400
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
X-Google-Original-From: Steve Muckle <smuckle@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:53:07 -0700
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq
 callbacks on remote CPUs
Message-ID: <20160506205307.GB15729@sky.smuckle.net>
References: <1461119969-10371-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
 <20160429103816.GC2927@vireshk-i7>
 <1811208.ius7TXdi4I@vostro.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1811208.ius7TXdi4I@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 04:08:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
...
> > Any clue, why we don't have a non-SMP version of irq_work_queue_on(), Which can
> > simply call irq_work_queue() ?
> 
> Because nobody else needs it?
> 
> But I agree that it would be nicer to add the stub to irq_work.h.

I had wondered the same myself and figured there had to be a good reason why it didn't exist.

But if not, and it's preferred to add it, I'll go ahead and so.