From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753299AbZLAO00 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:26:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752237AbZLAO00 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:26:26 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35010 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751355AbZLAO0Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:26:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:26:11 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Howells Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, steved@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case Message-ID: <20091201142611.GA1183@elte.hu> References: <25668.1259675528@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25668.1259675528@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Howells wrote: > @@ -943,6 +953,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(slow_work_register_user); > */ > static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES > DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(myself, current); > struct slow_work *work; > int loop; > @@ -989,6 +1000,7 @@ static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module) > > remove_wait_queue(&slow_work_unreg_wq, &myself); > mutex_unlock(&slow_work_unreg_sync_lock); > +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */ > } this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef block too. With that fixed it looks good to me for .33 (but i havent tested it): Acked-by: Ingo Molnar In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd really not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need /proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a and why did it have to happen right before the final kernel? If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another /proc ABI. Also, a very small aesthetic detail: i think the title should use the 'slow-work: ' prefix, not 'SLOW_WORK: '. Thanks, Ingo