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. -- 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/
