Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug,
> but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and
> installation
> are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
WHY? Why is that not a good
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug,
but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and
installation
are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
WHY? Why is that not a good design
Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug,
but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and
installation
are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
And since the pwq-allocation and installation are in the same wq_pool_mutex,
get_online_cpus() will not be needed
Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug,
but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and
installation
are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
And since the pwq-allocation and installation are in the same wq_pool_mutex,
get_online_cpus() will not be needed
4 matches
Mail list logo
