[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538FC5F8.1020605@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:20:56 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound
pool
Ping.
And would these patches be possible for 3.16?
Thanks,
Lai
On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> There is a piece of sanity checks code in the put_unbound_pool().
> The meaning of this code is "if it is not an unbound pool, it will complain
> and return" IIUC. But the code uses "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
> imprecisely due to a non-unbound pool may also have this flags.
>
> We should use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool, so we covert the
> code to it.
>
> There is no strictly wrong if we still keep "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
> here, but it is just a noise if we keep it:
> 1) we focus on "unbound" here, not "[dis]association".
> 2) "pool->cpu < 0" already implies "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED".
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 90a0fa5..724ae35 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -3457,7 +3457,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
> return;
>
> /* sanity checks */
> - if (WARN_ON(!(pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)) ||
> + if (WARN_ON(!(pool->cpu < 0)) ||
> WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pool->worklist)))
> return;
>
--
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