-----Original Message-----
From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:jthumshirn@suse.de]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:18 AM
To: Don Brace
Cc: jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Viswas G; Mahesh Rajashekhara;
hch@infradead.org; Scott Teel; Kevin Barnett; Justin Lindley; Scott Benesh;
elliott@hpe.com; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] smartpqi: minor tweaks to update time support

EXTERNAL EMAIL


On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:29:20PM +0000, Don Brace wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:jthumshirn@suse.de]

[...]

quoted

The reason is that we want it run immediately (or close to immediately).

The code could be restructured to avoid calling this function with a 0, but it

would result in more code and no benefit.

OK, now I'm not sure if we talked past each other. I didn't mean
"don't call schedule_delayed_work() with a delay of 0" but "why aren't
you using schedule_work() instead". But maybe it's just too early in
the morning and I didn't have enough coffee yet.

Because the two functions take different work structures as arguments:

static inline bool schedule_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork,
					 unsigned long delay)

static inline bool schedule_work(struct work_struct *work)

Thanks,
        Johannes

--
Johannes Thumshirn                                          Storage
jthumshirn@suse.de                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850