On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:04:27PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> In 75ccf5950f82 ("workqueue: prepare flush_workqueue() for dynamic
> creation and destrucion of unbound pool_workqueues"), a comment
> about the synchronization for the pwq in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
> was added. The comment clained the flush_mutex was isn't strictly
> necessary, it was correct in that time, due to the pwq was protected
> by workqueue_lock.
>
> But it is incorrect now since the wq->flush_mutex was renamed to
> wq->mutex and workqueue_lock was removed, the wq->mutex is strictly
> needed. But the comment was miss-updated when the synchronization
> was changed.
>
> This patch removes the incorrect comments directly, and it doesn't
> add any new comment to explain why wq->mutex is needed here,
> which is definitely obvious and wq->pwqs_node has "WQ" notation
> in its definition which is better comment.
>
> The old commit mentioned above also introduced a comment in link_pwq()
> about the synchronization. This comment is also removed in this patch
> since the whole link_pwq() is proteced by wq->mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com>
Applied to wq/for-3.17.
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/
