linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: remove the first check and the return value of maybe_create

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: <53C340B3.5040209@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:30:11 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: remove the first check and the return
 value of maybe_create_worker()

On 07/11/2014 11:03 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:01:03AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> @@ -1887,17 +1887,11 @@ static void pool_mayday_timeout(unsigned long __pool)
>>   * spin_lock_irq(pool->lock) which may be released and regrabbed
>>   * multiple times.  Does GFP_KERNEL allocations.  Called only from
>>   * manager.
>> - *
>> - * Return:
>> - * %false if no action was taken and pool->lock stayed locked, %true
>> - * otherwise.
>>   */
>> -static bool maybe_create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
>> +static void maybe_create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> 
> We probably should drop "maybe_" from the function name?
> 

We already have create_worker(). And maybe_create_worker() does not always create worker.
maybe_create_worker() may not create worker if the condition is changed after
it fails at the first time, 
--
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/