On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void) > { > int err, i; > > + i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0); Oops. I forgot to add if (!i915_wq) return -ENOMEM; here. But I'd like to wait for your response for a while before submitting v2 patch. > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs); i++) { > err = init_funcs[i].init(); > if (err < 0) { > @@ -86,6 +89,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void) > if (init_funcs[i].exit) > init_funcs[i].exit(); > } > + destroy_workqueue(i915_wq); > return err; > } else if (err > 0) { > /* > @@ -113,6 +117,7 @@ static void __exit i915_exit(void) > if (init_funcs[i].exit) > init_funcs[i].exit(); > } > + destroy_workqueue(i915_wq); > } > > module_init(i915_init);