[PATCH] workqueue: Comment correction in file header

[PATCH] workqueue: Comment correction in file header

[Libin]

No functional change. There are two worker pools for each cpu in
current implementation(one for normal work items and the other for
high priority ones).

Signed-off-by: Libin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index e8ee7a4..904ec00 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
  *
  * This is the generic async execution mechanism.  Work items as are
  * executed in process context.  The worker pool is shared and
- * automatically managed.  There is one worker pool for each CPU and
- * one extra for works which are better served by workers which are
+ * automatically managed.  There are two worker pools for each CPU(one
+ * for normal work items and the other for high priority ones) and
+ * two extra for works which are better served by workers which are
  * not bound to any specific CPU.
  *
  * Please read Documentation/workqueue.txt for details.
-- 
1.8.2.1

Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Comment correction in file header

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Libin.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:32:44PM +0800, Libin wrote:
>   * This is the generic async execution mechanism.  Work items as are
>   * executed in process context.  The worker pool is shared and
> - * automatically managed.  There is one worker pool for each CPU and
> - * one extra for works which are better served by workers which are
> + * automatically managed.  There are two worker pools for each CPU(one
> + * for normal work items and the other for high priority ones) and
> + * two extra for works which are better served by workers which are

For unbound workqueues, the number of backing pools is dynamic.
Unbound workqueue can be assigned custom attributes using
apply_workqueue_attrs() and workqueue will automatically create
backing worker pools matching the attributes.

Can you please update this and the doc update patch accordingly?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun