linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: add __WQ_FREEZING and remove POOL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140417152932.GN15326@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:29:32 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: add __WQ_FREEZING and remove POOL_FREEZING

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:58:55AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Why are we removing the above?  Can't we still test __WQ_FREEZING as
> > we're holding wq->mutex?  I don't really mind removing the
> > optimization but the patch description at least has to explain what's
> > going on.
> 
> This part was in other old patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/3/756
> I admit the changelogs(old patch&this) are bad.
> But I still consider it would be better if we split it to two patches:
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/3/748 & https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/3/756)
> 
> There are different aims in the patches.
> 
> Any thinks? And sorry for I didn't keep to push the patches at that time.

Yeah, I think I like the changes.  Please split them and send with
proper descriptions.

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/