From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 update for 2.6.39-rc1 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:24:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20110325172446.GH1409@htj.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:59753 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751262Ab1CYRYw (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:24:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, Linus. On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:02:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, guys, can you verify my merge? In one branch, we had Tejun change > it to use "alloc_workqueue()", and in another, ext4 switched from > create_workqueue() to create_singlethread_workqueue(). > > My resolution was to use WQ_UNBOUND in allow_workqueue() in the > resulting merge, which I think should be semantically the correct > resolve. But the commit message in the create_singlethread_workqueue() > change seems to imply that the single-threadedness isn't a > _correctness_ issue as much as it is just a "we don't need multiple > threads" issue, so maybe the WQ_UNBOUND isn't necessary. So WQ_UNBOUND > may or may not be a good idea. > > Regardless, please give it a look, ok? The merg should be safe but WQ_UNBOUND isn't necessary there, so I think the version from commit fd89d5f2030a ("ext4: convert to alloc_workqueue()") would be better. BTW, Stephen already spotted this earlier today - https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/24/652 Thanks. -- tejun