Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call
From: Jens Axboe
Date: Fri Mar 19 2021 - 09:03:48 EST
On 3/19/21 3:47 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>>>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>>>>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>>>> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
>>> Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?
>> If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
>> we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
>> folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.
> I've always lobied for a Fixes-from: tag, but the kbuild-bot tells
> everyone to add a Reported-by: tag. But then a lot of people are like
> Reported-by doesn't make sense. And other people are like Reported-by
> is fine, what's wrong with it?
I don't reported-by for this use either, as that is a lot more
appropriate for a single fix that fixes an issue that was reported by
(duh) that specific person.
Fixes-from seems a lot better.