>> Still, the kfree(NULL) is harmless. But it is cleaner
>> to have the patch. But the changelog is wrong, even after
>> the lengthened debating, and English is not my mother tongue,
>> so I just looked on.
>
> We have tried to tell Markus not to advise people about commit messages
A few concerns
> I'm also confused why they have been debating about the changelog
> after the patch was queued.
I suggest to take another look at the provided patch review comments.
> My statement was about "the patch is a correct cleanup,
> but the changelog is totally misleading".
The commit message was ac
> I'm also confused why they have been debating about the changelog
> after the patch was queued.
I suggest to take another look at the provided patch review comments.
> My statement was about "the patch is a correct cleanup,
> but the changelog is totally misleading".
The commit message was ac
> Yeah, regardless of who puts a wq the last time, the base reference is put
> by destroy_workqueue() and thus it's guaranteed that a wq can't be rcu freed
> without going through destroy_workqueue(). lol I'm undoing the revert.
* Would you like to add such background information to the change des
> Can it matter to use separate callback functions for these cases?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc7/C/ident/rcu_free_pwq
See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc7/C/ident/rcu_free_wq
Regards,
Markus
>> 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?
>
> Oops, missed that. Reverting.
Can it matt
6 matches
Mail list logo
