[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YOEF3USJYQqmBWE4kXxhti0awfbPdQntMvHSW4zy5k0dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:55:24 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Artem Savkov <artem.savkov@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viakernel.org@....dyndns.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: missing idr_preload_end() in worker_pool_assign_id()
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> That patch doesn't use idr_preload(). It looks like the issue is
>> introduced during linux-next merge of wq/for-3.10 and idr patches in
>> -mm. Stephen, can you please add idr_preload_end() to the merge
>> patch?
>
> Oops, sorry about that. I assume it needs to be added just after the
> spin_unlock_irq() but still inside the loop?
Yeap. Andrew already has the change, I think.
>> Once the idr patches land in Linus' tree, I'll resolve the conflict
>> from wq tree side.
>
> Or you could do what Linus prefers and just tell him how to resolve the
> conflict and thereby avoid a back merge or rebase (or provide him with a
> separate branch that does the back merge with resolution in addition to
> the unmerged branch to pull).
That part of code is gonna see more changes and I don't wanna build on
top of the deprecated interface, so the back-pull is actually
justified - wq tree actually wants the receive the particular change
to build on top.
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