> 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 accordingly adjusted, wasn't it? > destroy_workqueue(percpu_wq) -> rcu_free_wq() > or > destroy_workqueue(unbound_wq) -> put_pwq() -> > pwq_unbound_release_workfn() -> rcu_free_wq() > > So the patch is correct to me. Only can destroy_workqueue() > lead to rcu_free_wq(). > > Still, the kfree(NULL) is harmless. But it is cleaner > to have the patch. Thanks for such a feedback. > But the changelog is wrong, even after the lengthened debating, Do you expect any corresponding improvements? > and English is not my mother tongue, so I just looked on. How will the patch review evolve further despite of this information? Regards, Markus
