[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62cd71bc-86e1-412d-b2b9-716c0f8021be@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:24:57 +0000
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
alloc_workqueue call
On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>
> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
> series.
>
Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists