[PATCH 4.9 27/32] workqueue: Fix flag collision

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

commit fbf1c41fc0f4d3574ac2377245efd666c1fa3075 upstream.

Commit 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be
overridable") introduced a __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT flag but gave it the
same value as __WQ_LEGACY.  I don't believe these were intended to
mean the same thing, so renumber __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT.

Fixes: 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be ...")
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
 include/linux/workqueue.h |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -311,8 +311,8 @@ enum {
 
 	__WQ_DRAINING		= 1 << 16, /* internal: workqueue is draining */
 	__WQ_ORDERED		= 1 << 17, /* internal: workqueue is ordered */
-	__WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT	= 1 << 18, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
 	__WQ_LEGACY		= 1 << 18, /* internal: create*_workqueue() */
+	__WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT	= 1 << 19, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
 
 	WQ_MAX_ACTIVE		= 512,	  /* I like 512, better ideas? */
 	WQ_MAX_UNBOUND_PER_CPU	= 4,	  /* 4 * #cpus for unbound wq */