Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15:53 -0400 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool |
| |
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:31:45PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > There is a piece of sanity checks code in the put_unbound_pool(). > The meaning of this code is "if it is not an unbound pool, it will complain > and return" IIUC. But the code uses "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED" > imprecisely due to a non-unbound pool may also have this flags. > > We should use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool, so we covert the > code to it. > > There is no strictly wrong if we still keep "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED" > here, but it is just a noise if we keep it: > 1) we focus on "unbound" here, not "[dis]association". > 2) "pool->cpu < 0" already implies "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED". > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Applied to wq/for-3.17.
Thansk.
-- tejun
| |