On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:37:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +static int apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
> + const struct workqueue_attrs *attrs);
Can't we reorder things so that we don't need the above prototype?
> +/* Must be called with wq_unbound_mutex held */
Please use lockdep_assert_held() instead.
> +static int unbounds_cpumask_apply_all(cpumask_var_t cpumask)
> +{
> + struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
> + struct workqueue_attrs *attrs;
> +
> + if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
> + continue;
> + /* Ordered workqueues need specific treatment */
> + if (wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED)
> + continue;
> +
> + attrs = wq_sysfs_prep_attrs(wq);
> + if (!attrs)
> + return -ENOMEM;
So, we're failing in the middle without rolling back?
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(wq, attrs));
Are we triggering WARN on -ENOMEM too and then ignore the failure?
> + free_workqueue_attrs(attrs);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Shouldn't we separate allocation stage from switching stage so that we
can either succeed or fail? The above is very mushy about error
handling.
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/
