On Fri, 2017-09-08 at 17:07 +0200, Benjamin Beichler wrote: > > Am 8. September 2017 16:19:20 MESZ schrieb Johannes Berg <johannes@si > psolutions.net>: > > On Fri, 2017-09-08 at 16:11 +0200, Benjamin Beichler wrote: > > > The ops field is zero initialized, therefore parallel ops is > > > already > > > false. > > > > Therefore this patch is completely pointless? > > Sorry my first message was missing regarding this. My question is, > whether this is intentionally, and if it is parallel, whether we need > extensive locking here. It's basically intentional - not sure parallel_ops even existed when this was first written, but we can probably use parallel_ops if we want to. johannes
