On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:27:03PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:27 PM Dan Carpenter
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:08:06PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Dan Carpenter
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys, the patch is
Hello,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:27:03PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> wq owns the ultimate or permanent references to itself by
> owning references to wq->numa_pwq_tbl[node], wq->dfl_pwq.
> The pwq's references keep the pwq in wq->pwqs.
Yeah, regardless of who puts a wq the last time, the base
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:27 PM Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:08:06PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Dan Carpenter
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys, the patch is wrong. The kfree is harmless when this is called
> > > from destroy_workqueue()
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:08:06PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Dan Carpenter
> wrote:
> >
> > Guys, the patch is wrong. The kfree is harmless when this is called
> > from destroy_workqueue() and required when it's called from
> > pwq_unbound_release_workfn().
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> Guys, the patch is wrong. The kfree is harmless when this is called
> from destroy_workqueue() and required when it's called from
> pwq_unbound_release_workfn(). Lai Jiangshan already explained this
> already. Why are we still discussing
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Guys, the patch is wrong. The kfree is harmless when this is called
> from destroy_workqueue() and required when it's called from
> pwq_unbound_release_workfn(). Lai Jiangshan already explained this
> already. Why are we still
Guys, the patch is wrong. The kfree is harmless when this is called
from destroy_workqueue() and required when it's called from
pwq_unbound_release_workfn(). Lai Jiangshan already explained this
already. Why are we still discussing this?
regards,
dan carpenter
-kernel@vger.kernel.org ;
kernel-janit...@vger.kernel.org
主题: Re: [PATCH v5] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free_wq()
> Thus delete this function call which became unnecessary with the referenced
> software update.
…
> Suggested-by: Markus Elfring
Would the tag “Co-
From: Zhang Qiang
The data structure member "wq->rescuer" was reset to a null pointer
in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function "kfree"
in the callback function "rcu_free_wq" (which was eventually executed).
The function "kfree" does not perform more meaningful data processing
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:57:15PM +0800, qiang.zh...@windriver.com wrote:
> From: Zhang Qiang
>
> The data structure member "wq->rescuer" was reset to a null pointer
> in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function "kfree"
> in the callback function "rcu_free_wq" (which was
> Thus delete this function call which became unnecessary with the referenced
> software update.
…
> Suggested-by: Markus Elfring
Would the tag “Co-developed-by” be more appropriate according to the patch
review
to achieve a more pleasing commit message?
> v1->v2->v3->v4->v5:
> Modify
From: Zhang Qiang
The data structure member "wq->rescuer" was reset to a null pointer
in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function "kfree"
in the callback function "rcu_free_wq" (which was eventually executed).
The function "kfree" does not perform more meaningful data processing
12 matches
Mail list logo
