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

2014-06-19 Thread 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

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

2014-06-19 Thread 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

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

2014-06-16 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Hi, Tejun 3.16-rc1 came out. Could you review the patches? Thanks, Lai On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, 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

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

2014-06-16 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Hi, Tejun 3.16-rc1 came out. Could you review the patches? Thanks, Lai On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, 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

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

2014-06-04 Thread Lai Jiangshan
On 06/05/2014 09:17 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:20:56AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> And would these patches be possible for 3.16? > > It's a bit too late. I'd like to wait for the next merge window. OK, > AFAICS, there's nothing critical, right? They are normal

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

2014-06-04 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:20:56AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > And would these patches be possible for 3.16? It's a bit too late. I'd like to wait for the next merge window. AFAICS, there's nothing critical, right? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

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

2014-06-04 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Ping. And would these patches be possible for 3.16? Thanks, Lai On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, 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

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

2014-06-04 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Ping. And would these patches be possible for 3.16? Thanks, Lai On 06/03/2014 03:31 PM, 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

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

2014-06-04 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:20:56AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: And would these patches be possible for 3.16? It's a bit too late. I'd like to wait for the next merge window. AFAICS, there's nothing critical, right? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe

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

2014-06-04 Thread Lai Jiangshan
On 06/05/2014 09:17 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:20:56AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: And would these patches be possible for 3.16? It's a bit too late. I'd like to wait for the next merge window. OK, AFAICS, there's nothing critical, right? They are normal cleanups.

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

2014-06-03 Thread Lai Jiangshan
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

[PATCH] workqueue: use pool-cpu 0 to stand for an unbound pool

2014-06-03 Thread Lai Jiangshan
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