| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:08:11 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10 V2] workqueue: destroy_worker() should destroy idle workers only On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:56:14PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > @@ -1692,9 +1691,8 @@ static struct worker *alloc_worker(void) > * create_worker - create a new workqueue worker > * @pool: pool the new worker will belong to > * > - * Create a new worker which is bound to @pool. The returned worker > - * can be started by calling start_worker() or destroyed using > - * destroy_worker(). > + * Create a new worker which is attached to @pool. > + * The new worker must be started and enter idle via start_worker(). Please always fill the comment paragarphs to 75 column or so. Also, do we even need start_worker() separate anymore? Maybe we can just fold alloc_and_create_worker() into alloc_worker()? > @@ -1815,6 +1812,7 @@ static int create_and_start_worker(struct worker_pool *pool) > * @worker: worker to be destroyed > * > * Destroy @worker and adjust @pool stats accordingly. > + * The worker should be idle. Ditto about filling. Looks good otherwise. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists