mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: remove the stale comment in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:04:27 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1406005467-12106-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)

In 75ccf5950f82 ("workqueue: prepare flush_workqueue() for dynamic
creation and destrucion of unbound pool_workqueues"), a comment
about the synchronization for the pwq in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
was added. The comment clained the flush_mutex was isn't strictly
necessary, it was correct in that time, due to the pwq was protected
by workqueue_lock.

But it is incorrect now since the wq->flush_mutex was renamed to
wq->mutex and workqueue_lock was removed, the wq->mutex is strictly
needed. But the comment was miss-updated when the synchronization
was changed.

This patch removes the incorrect comments directly, and it doesn't
add any new comment to explain why wq->mutex is needed here,
which is definitely obvious and wq->pwqs_node has "WQ" notation
in its definition which is better comment.

The old commit mentioned above also introduced a comment in link_pwq()
about the synchronization. This comment is also removed in this patch
since the whole link_pwq() is proteced by wq->mutex.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c |   10 +---------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 942103d9..b8990cf 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3527,11 +3527,6 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)))
 		return;
 
-	/*
-	 * Unlink @pwq.  Synchronization against wq->mutex isn't strictly
-	 * necessary on release but do it anyway.  It's easier to verify
-	 * and consistent with the linking path.
-	 */
 	mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
 	list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
 	is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs);
@@ -3628,10 +3623,7 @@ static void link_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
 	if (!list_empty(&pwq->pwqs_node))
 		return;
 
-	/*
-	 * Set the matching work_color.  This is synchronized with
-	 * wq->mutex to avoid confusing flush_workqueue().
-	 */
+	/* Set the matching work_color.  */
 	pwq->work_color = wq->work_color;
 
 	/* sync max_active to the current setting */
-- 
1.7.4.4


             reply	other threads:[~2014-07-22  5:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-22  5:04 Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2014-07-22 15:33 ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1406005467-12106-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®