Re: [PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool

[Tejun Heo]

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 <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Applied to wq/for-3.17.

Thansk.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/