diff options
| author | Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> | 2014-07-22 13:04:27 +0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | 2014-07-22 12:10:39 -0400 |
| commit | 29b1cb416a2920fbc70041e4382920ae2d86f426 (patch) | |
| tree | d0571f5bc0132f5a600c066e858a308b105dc729 /kernel/workqueue.c | |
| parent | 13b1d625ef430ab7af059099828e1b9fba622369 (diff) | |
workqueue: remove the stale comment in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
In 75ccf5950f82 ("workqueue: prepare flush_workqueue() for dynamic
creation and destrucion of unbound pool_workqueues"), a comment
about the synchronization for the pwq in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
was added. The comment claimed the flush_mutex wasn't strictly
necessary, it was correct in that time, due to the pwq was protected
by workqueue_lock.
But it is incorrect now since the wq->flush_mutex was renamed to
wq->mutex and workqueue_lock was removed, the wq->mutex is strictly
needed. But the comment was miss-updated when the synchronization
was changed.
This patch removes the incorrect comments and doesn't add any new
comment to explain why wq->mutex is needed here, which is definitely
obvious and wq->pwqs_node has "WQ" notation in its definition which is
better comment.
The old commit mentioned above also introduced a comment in link_pwq()
about the synchronization. This comment is also removed in this patch
since the whole link_pwq() is proteced by wq->mutex.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/workqueue.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/workqueue.c | 10 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 4d9600faa400..0732d33d6dd5 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -3530,11 +3530,6 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))) return; - /* - * Unlink @pwq. Synchronization against wq->mutex isn't strictly - * necessary on release but do it anyway. It's easier to verify - * and consistent with the linking path. - */ mutex_lock(&wq->mutex); list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node); is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs); @@ -3631,10 +3626,7 @@ static void link_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq) if (!list_empty(&pwq->pwqs_node)) return; - /* - * Set the matching work_color. This is synchronized with - * wq->mutex to avoid confusing flush_workqueue(). - */ + /* set the matching work_color */ pwq->work_color = wq->work_color; /* sync max_active to the current setting */ |