From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free_wq()
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:02:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <68ee7d01-fcec-a0f8-4717-bc940efdbf38@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyD1nV=M=ccycqCMt86GMuZGkO9trbJ=4ti4EzP9kta6iA@mail.gmail.com>
> I'm also confused why they have been debating about the changelog
> after the patch was queued.
I suggest to take another look at the provided patch review comments.
> My statement was about "the patch is a correct cleanup,
> but the changelog is totally misleading".
The commit message was accordingly adjusted, wasn't it?
> destroy_workqueue(percpu_wq) -> rcu_free_wq()
> or
> destroy_workqueue(unbound_wq) -> put_pwq() ->
> pwq_unbound_release_workfn() -> rcu_free_wq()
>
> So the patch is correct to me. Only can destroy_workqueue()
> lead to rcu_free_wq().
>
> Still, the kfree(NULL) is harmless. But it is cleaner
> to have the patch.
Thanks for such a feedback.
> But the changelog is wrong, even after the lengthened debating,
Do you expect any corresponding improvements?
> and English is not my mother tongue, so I just looked on.
How will the patch review evolve further despite of this information?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-28 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-27 7:57 [PATCH v5] " qiang.zhang
2020-05-27 8:20 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <DM6PR11MB32573F3884A864ECD586235EFF8E0@DM6PR11MB3257.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2020-05-28 1:44 ` 回复: " Zhang, Qiang
2020-05-28 9:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-05-28 10:38 ` Tejun Heo
2020-05-28 11:00 ` [v5] " Markus Elfring
2020-05-28 14:40 ` Markus Elfring
2020-05-28 12:08 ` 回复: [PATCH v5] " Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-28 12:25 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-05-28 13:27 ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-28 14:03 ` Tejun Heo
2020-05-28 14:45 ` [v5] " Markus Elfring
2020-05-28 14:06 ` 回复: [PATCH v5] " Dan Carpenter
2020-05-28 15:25 ` [v5] " Markus Elfring
2020-05-28 15:02 ` Markus Elfring
2020-05-28 15:02 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2020-05-27 13:52 ` [PATCH v5] " 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=68ee7d01-fcec-a0f8-4717-bc940efdbf38@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qiang.zhang@windriver.com \
--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®