Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 07:58:02PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> That being said, I still don't understand why you focus on this tiny and not
> really important detail while the module itself is actually broken (for dynamic
> bgworker without s_p_l) and also has some broken behaviors with regards to the
> naptime that are way more likely to hurt third party code that was written
> using this module as an example.

Are you or Aleksander interested in helping improve this module?  I'm happy
to help review and/or write patches.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com