[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5371B6CB.3090301@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:08:11 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10 V2] workqueue: destroy_worker() should destroy idle
workers only
On 05/13/2014 05:08 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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()?
We should do this I think. but it is just cleanup, I will do it after
this core patchset is accepted.
>
>> @@ -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.
>
--
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