On 30-11-15, 13:05, Lucas Stach wrote: > I don't want to block this patch on that, but maybe as a thought for > further consideration: Wouldn't it make sense to use a single unbound > deferrable work item for this? There was some work to make this possible > already: "timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to > a cpu"
Yes, it would be sensible but that work has gone nowhere since April. Once that is merged, we can think about it. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
