From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752640AbaGVFDa (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:03:30 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:63818 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752508AbaGVFD3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:03:29 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.00,931,1396972800"; d="scan'208";a="33612989" From: Lai Jiangshan To: CC: Tejun Heo , Lai Jiangshan Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: remove the stale comment in pwq_unbound_release_workfn() Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:04:27 +0800 Message-ID: <1406005467-12106-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.4.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.103] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 --- 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