[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3302014f-6ee0-452a-a6a5-dea6fcc37542@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:42:50 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/53] workqueue: Introduce the create*_workqueue2()
macros
On 6/30/24 7:51 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 6:29 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
>> --- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
>> @@ -525,11 +525,20 @@ alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt, unsigned int flags, int max_active, ...);
>>
>> #define create_workqueue(name) \
>> alloc_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
>> +#define create_workqueue2(fmt, args...) \
>> + alloc_workqueue(fmt, __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, ##args)
>> #define create_freezable_workqueue(name) \
>> alloc_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_FREEZABLE | WQ_UNBOUND | \
>> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
>
> Is there any possible preprocessor hack to avoid the renaming of the functions?
Thanks Lai for having taken a look. As one can see here the last patch
of this patch series renames create_workqueue2() back to
create_workqueue():
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20240630222904.627462-1-bvanassche@acm.org/
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists