Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: concurrency managed workqueue, take#5

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Mon Jun 14 2010 - 19:07:41 EST

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:43:17 +0200
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello,
> On 06/15/2010 12:35 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Nobody's going to remember all that stuff except yourself, and the info
> > might be out of date. So please update and maintain that information
> > and retain it with the patchset.
> >
> > eg: "<NEED SOME BACKING NUMBERS>". And "Please read the patch
> > description of the last patch for more details" is out of date.
> >
> > Because right now I have a bunch of code in my inbox and little
> > (actually "no") idea why anyone might want to merge it into anything.
> >
> > Trying to review a large patchset when you don't have an overall
> > picture of what it's trying to do and how it's trying to do it is
> > rather painful - you have to work all that stuff out from the
> > implementation. It's also error-prone if the implementation doesn't
> > implement that which the author thinks it implements (ie: if it has
> > design bugs).
> Well, basics of the whole thing didn't change all that much since the
> first take and most people on cc list were cc'd on each take. The
> biggest reason I'm still carrying the whole patchset is due to the
> scheduler changes. The numbers are in the third take (which you can
> follow the links to find out). Anyways, I'll write up another summary
> tomorrow.

Thanks. I don't think I've looked at these patches at all since the
first version, and I'd like to. That was many many thousands of
patches ago and I don't remember anything useful at all about them.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at