On 19/03/2021 15:54, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:16:26PM +, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>> loop%d number. Fix
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:16:26PM +, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:12:10PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> > however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> > loop%d number. Fix
On 3/19/21 3:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/03/2021 21:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue
On 3/19/21 3:47 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to
On 19/03/2021 10:47, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to
On 18/03/2021 21:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
however currently it
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> >>> From: Colin Ian King
> >>>
> >>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King
>>>
>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the
On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
Dan, please fold this
On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 15:16 +, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>
>
From: Colin Ian King
The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing argument to printf")
Fixes: 08ad7f822739
13 matches
Mail list logo