Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:20:47 -0400 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: extend wq_pool_mutex to also protect pwq-installation |
| |
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug, > but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and installation > are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
WHY? Why is that not a good design and why is extending the locking a better thing to do? Can you elaborate the reasoning here?
> And since the pwq-allocation and installation are in the same wq_pool_mutex, > get_online_cpus() will not be needed for this reason, and it will be remove > in later patch.
So, if this enables further cleanup, it's fine, but please just stick to those reasons. You do this a lot. You wanna do A because of B but the changelog often doesn't mention that at all and just goes "This is bad so change this to be better" without any proper reasoning. If you want to do A to achieve B later, just say so.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |