Re: [PATCH 3/3 V7] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:39:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Generally looks good to me.  Some minor things below.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:26:37PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > index cbccf5d..557612e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(wq_mayday_lock);	/* protects wq->maydays list */
> >  static LIST_HEAD(workqueues);		/* PR: list of all workqueues */
> >  static bool workqueue_freezing;		/* PL: have wqs started freezing? */
> >  
> > -static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask;
> > +static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask; /* PL: low level cpumask for all unbound wqs */
> 
> Are we set on this variable name?  What would we lose by naming it
> wq_unbound_cpumask or wq_cpu_possible_mask?

I like wq_unbound_cpumask personally. In fact I like to have "unbound"
inside to express what's concerned here. I like wq_cpu_possible_mask too
but unfortunately it suggests it's about all workqueues (including per cpu
ones) while it's not.