30 Nov
2015
30 Nov
'15
1:35 p.m.
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