* David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -943,6 +953,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(slow_work_register_user);
> */
> static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(myself, current);
> struct slow_work *work;
> int loop;
> @@ -989,6 +1000,7 @@ static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
>
> remove_wait_queue(&slow_work_unreg_wq, &myself);
> mutex_unlock(&slow_work_unreg_sync_lock);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
> }
this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef
block too.
With that fixed it looks good to me for .33 (but i havent tested it):
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd
really not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need
/proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a and why did it have to happen right
before the final kernel?
If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another
/proc ABI.
Also, a very small aesthetic detail: i think the title should use the
'slow-work: ' prefix, not 'SLOW_WORK: '.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
