Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-08 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or > it's not suggested to use

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-08 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or > it's not suggested to use

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-05 Thread Andreas Mohr
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:41:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync() > > would hit the same issue, > > without any fix then available locally each. > > > > This may or

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-05 Thread Andreas Mohr
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:41:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync() > > would hit the same issue, > > without any fix then available locally each. > > > > This may or

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-05 Thread Tejun Heo
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync() > would hit the same issue, > without any fix then available locally each. > > This may or may not be intentional. > Just wanted to point it out. idk, invoking a

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-05 Thread Tejun Heo
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync() > would hit the same issue, > without any fix then available locally each. > > This may or may not be intentional. > Just wanted to point it out. idk, invoking a

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-04 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-04 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-03 Thread Andreas Mohr
Hi, [no properly binding reference via In-Reply-To: available thus manually re-creating, sorry] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/2/335 I came up with the following somewhat random thoughts: *** this treatment is exclusive to a single use case, i.e. not covering things consistently (API-wide) >

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-03 Thread Andreas Mohr
Hi, [no properly binding reference via In-Reply-To: available thus manually re-creating, sorry] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/2/335 I came up with the following somewhat random thoughts: *** this treatment is exclusive to a single use case, i.e. not covering things consistently (API-wide) >

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-03 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-03 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-02 Thread Tejun Heo
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, > > > > or > > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-02 Thread Tejun Heo
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, > > > > or > > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-02 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot up > > > phase. > > > Could you help to share some opinions? (I can fix this

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-02 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot up > > > phase. > > > Could you help to share some opinions? (I can fix this

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 02:45, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread qiaozhou
On 2016年09月02日 02:45, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to > maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default > value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency according to >

Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote: > In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to > maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default > value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency according to >

[Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread qiaozhou
Hi Tejun, I have a question related with below patch, and need your suggestion. In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency

[Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

2016-09-01 Thread qiaozhou
Hi Tejun, I have a question related with below patch, and need your suggestion. In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency