[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170903001841.GM18698@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 01:18:41 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix flag collision
Commit 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be
overridable") introduced a __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT flag but gave it the
same value as __WQ_LEGACY. I don't believe these were intended to
mean the same thing, so renumber __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT.
Fixes: 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be ...")
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
---
include/linux/workqueue.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h
index db6dc9dc0482..1c49431f3121 100644
--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -323,8 +323,8 @@ enum {
__WQ_DRAINING = 1 << 16, /* internal: workqueue is draining */
__WQ_ORDERED = 1 << 17, /* internal: workqueue is ordered */
- __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT = 1 << 18, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
__WQ_LEGACY = 1 << 18, /* internal: create*_workqueue() */
+ __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT = 1 << 19, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
WQ_MAX_ACTIVE = 512, /* I like 512, better ideas? */
WQ_MAX_UNBOUND_PER_CPU = 4, /* 4 * #cpus for unbound wq */
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists