There is a piece of sanity checks code in the put_unbound_pool().
The meaning of this code is "if it is not an unbound pool, it will complain
and return" IIUC. But the code uses "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
imprecisely due to a non-unbound pool may also have this flags.
We should use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool, so we covert the
code to it.
There is no strictly wrong if we still keep "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
here, but it is just a noise if we keep it:
1) we focus on "unbound" here, not "[dis]association".
2) "pool->cpu < 0" already implies "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED".
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 90a0fa5..724ae35 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3457,7 +3457,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
return;
/* sanity checks */
- if (WARN_ON(!(pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)) ||
+ if (WARN_ON(!(pool->cpu < 0)) ||
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pool->worklist)))
return;
--
1.7.4.4
--
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/
