From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758088AbaFSQP6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]:58103 "EHLO mail-qg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757663AbaFSQP5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15:53 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Lai Jiangshan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool Message-ID: <20140619161553.GI26904@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1401780714-12127-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401780714-12127-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 Applied to wq/for-3.17. Thansk. -- tejun