On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
>  {
>       int err, i;
>  
> +     i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0);

Oops. I forgot to add

        if (!i915_wq)
                return -ENOMEM;

here. But I'd like to wait for your response for a while before submitting v2 
patch.


>       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs); i++) {
>               err = init_funcs[i].init();
>               if (err < 0) {
> @@ -86,6 +89,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
>                               if (init_funcs[i].exit)
>                                       init_funcs[i].exit();
>                       }
> +                     destroy_workqueue(i915_wq);
>                       return err;
>               } else if (err > 0) {
>                       /*
> @@ -113,6 +117,7 @@ static void __exit i915_exit(void)
>               if (init_funcs[i].exit)
>                       init_funcs[i].exit();
>       }
> +     destroy_workqueue(i915_wq);
>  }
>  
>  module_init(i915_init);

Reply via email to