linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] workqueue: add WORKER

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120926180711.GB12544@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:07:11 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] workqueue: add WORKER_RESCUER

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:20:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> rescuer thread must be a worker which is WORKER_NOT_RUNNING:
> 	If it is *not* WORKER_NOT_RUNNING, it will increase the nr_running
> 	and it disables the normal workers wrongly.
> 
> So rescuer thread must be WORKER_NOT_RUNNING.
> 
> Currently code implement it by always setting WORKER_PREP on rescuer thread,
> but this kind of implement is ugly:
> A)	It reuses WORKER_PREP which is used for a different meaning.
> B)	It does not told us rescuer thread is WORKER_NOT_RUNNING.
> 
> So we add WORKER_RESCUER to fix these two sematic.

Ah, right, we always have WORKER_PREP set for rescuers.  So, this
doesn't actually change the behavior at all?  I'm not necessarily
against it but the commit message seems a bit misleading.

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/