From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932321AbcHOW7w (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:59:52 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com ([209.85.216.195]:33469 "EHLO mail-qt0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752356AbcHOW7u (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:59:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:59:48 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Bhaktipriya Shridhar Cc: Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Remove deprecated workqueue interface users Message-ID: <20160815225948.GG3672@mtj.duckdns.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 09:41:21PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote: > This patch set removes the instances of deprecated > create_singlethread_workqueues in drivers/power by making the appropriate > conversions. > > Bhaktipriya Shridhar (8): > power: abx500_chargalg: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: ab8500_btemp: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: pm2301_charger: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: intel_mid_battery: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: ab8500_charger: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: ipaq_micro_battery: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: ab8500_fg: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue > power: ds2760_battery: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue Patches look good to me. I'm a bit curious about WQ_MEM_RECLAIM part tho. I suppose the reasoning is that as the hardware in question is involved in battery management which may be time critical, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM is added to ensure (timely) forward progress under memory pressure, right? It'd be great if someone who's more familiar with these hardware can confirm whether this is actually necessary. Oh, it'd also be nice to put the target subsystem in the subject of the patchset - e.g. "[PATCH 0/8] power: Remove..." Thanks. -- tejun