4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit fbf1c41fc0f4d3574ac2377245efd666c1fa3075 upstream.
Commit 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be
overridable") introduced a __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT flag but gave it the
same value as __WQ_LEGACY. I don't believe these were intended to
mean the same thing, so renumber __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT.
Fixes: 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be ...")
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/workqueue.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -311,8 +311,8 @@ enum {
__WQ_DRAINING = 1 << 16, /* internal: workqueue is draining */
__WQ_ORDERED = 1 << 17, /* internal: workqueue is ordered */
- __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT = 1 << 18, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
__WQ_LEGACY = 1 << 18, /* internal: create*_workqueue() */
+ __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT = 1 << 19, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
WQ_MAX_ACTIVE = 512, /* I like 512, better ideas? */
WQ_MAX_UNBOUND_PER_CPU = 4, /* 4 * #cpus for unbound wq */