linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] workqueue: cleanup for attr management

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 10:06:53 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] workqueue: cleanup for attr management

On 05/18/2015 09:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:39:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> ping
> 
> Does this reflect the comments from the previous review cycle?
> 

This is the V2 version of the V1 pathset.  But it is just the updated
version of the patch1&2 of the V1 patchset.

It doesn't contains the fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store(),
so I can say it reflects all the comments except the name of the function
"get_node_unbound_pwq()" (patch was sent earlier than your replied).
(I wish I can get more comments before the next version).

The fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store() is so important,
should I directly send a patchset for it (including the patch1&2 of this V2 patchset)?
(and delay or even drop the "get_alloc_node_unbound_pwq()").

Thanks,
Lai.

--
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/