Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Colin Ian King
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Dan Schatzberg
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. >

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Dan Schatzberg
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Jens Axboe
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Jens Axboe
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-19 Thread Dan Carpenter
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,

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-18 Thread Jens Axboe
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-18 Thread Colin Ian King
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-18 Thread Jens Axboe
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

Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-18 Thread Muhammad Usama Anjum
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. > >

[PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

2021-03-18 Thread Colin King
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