lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool
Date
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>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 90a0fa5..724ae35 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3457,7 +3457,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
return;

/* sanity checks */
- if (WARN_ON(!(pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)) ||
+ if (WARN_ON(!(pool->cpu < 0)) ||
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pool->worklist)))
return;

--
1.7.4.4


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-03 10:01    [W:1.088 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site