On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:33:34AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:09:01PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >> @@ -2224,6 +2220,9 @@ woke_up: > >> spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock); > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&worker->entry)); > >> worker->task->flags &= ~PF_WQ_WORKER; > >> + > >> + set_task_comm(worker->task, "kworker_die"); > >> + ida_simple_remove(&pool->worker_ida, worker->id); > >> worker_unbind_pool(worker); > >> kfree(worker); > >> return 0; > > > > Does this chunk belong to this patch? Why no description about this > > change? > > "set_task_comm()" doesn't belong to this patch. it avoids two workers > have the same name.(one is dying, the other one is newly created"
Separate out this to a separate patch? A better name would be "kworker_dying". Does this matter tho? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
