On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:45:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> @@ -556,6 +556,7 @@ void __init_kthread_worker(struct kthread_worker *worker,
> const char *name,
> struct lock_class_key *key)
> {
> + worker->flags = 0;
> spin_lock_init(&worker->lock);
> lockdep_set_class_and_name(&worker->lock, key, name);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&worker->work_list);
Maybe memset the thing and drop 0, NULL inits?
> @@ -638,7 +643,8 @@ repeat:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kthread_worker_fn);
>
> static struct kthread_worker *
> -__create_kthread_worker(int cpu, const char namefmt[], va_list args)
> +__create_kthread_worker(unsigned int flags, int cpu,
> + const char namefmt[], va_list args)
Wouldn't @cpu, @flags be less confusing? You would end up with, (A,
B, C) and (B, C) instead of (A, B, C) and (A, C).
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>