From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:26:11 +0100
Message-ID: <20091201142611.GA1183@elte.hu>
References: <25668.1259675528@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	torvalds@osdl.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
	jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Return-path: <nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <25668.1259675528@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://linux-nfs.org/pipermail/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@linux-nfs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org


* David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> @@ -943,6 +953,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(slow_work_register_user);
>   */
>  static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
>  {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>  	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(myself, current);
>  	struct slow_work *work;
>  	int loop;
> @@ -989,6 +1000,7 @@ static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
>  
>  	remove_wait_queue(&slow_work_unreg_wq, &myself);
>  	mutex_unlock(&slow_work_unreg_sync_lock);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
>  }

this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef 
block too.

With that fixed it looks good to me for .33 (but i havent tested it):

  Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd 
really not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need 
/proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a and why did it have to happen right 
before the final kernel?

If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another 
/proc ABI.

Also, a very small aesthetic detail: i think the title should use the 
'slow-work: ' prefix, not 'SLOW_WORK: '.

Thanks,

	Ingo