Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:02:55 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3 V7] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask |
| |
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:39:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Generally looks good to me. Some minor things below. > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:26:37PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > > index cbccf5d..557612e 100644 > > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(wq_mayday_lock); /* protects wq->maydays list */ > > static LIST_HEAD(workqueues); /* PR: list of all workqueues */ > > static bool workqueue_freezing; /* PL: have wqs started freezing? */ > > > > -static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask; > > +static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask; /* PL: low level cpumask for all unbound wqs */ > > Are we set on this variable name? What would we lose by naming it > wq_unbound_cpumask or wq_cpu_possible_mask?
I like wq_unbound_cpumask personally. In fact I like to have "unbound" inside to express what's concerned here. I like wq_cpu_possible_mask too but unfortunately it suggests it's about all workqueues (including per cpu ones) while it's not.
| |