Hello, Lai. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > 1) Our aim is to protect unbound pwq, not percpu pwq which can't be be > protected by get_pwq(). > 2) get_pwq() will make reviewers confused/surprised, destroy_workqueue() may > destroy percpu pwqs > with ref > 1. At least we need to add more comments explain this behavior. > Origin comments: > /* > * The base ref is never dropped on per-cpu pwqs. Directly > * free the pwqs and wq. > */
You can just comment "pwqs might go away at any time, pin it until rescuer is done with it" and that's actually the better way to do it. percpu wq's not supporting attribute changes may change in the future. What the code path wants is pinning down the pwq no matter where it came from. There's no point in distinguishing unbound and per-cpu here. > 3) get_unbound_pwq() self document. Not really. If the name is get_pwq_if_unbound(), maybe. Functions which take args and become noop depending on the argument aren't generally good ideas. There are specific cases that they are suitable but this is just gratuituous. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
