Message-ID: <5559493D.2050002@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:06:53 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] workqueue: cleanup for attr management
References: <1431433955-3173-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> <555934B9.7030907@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150518012602.GB22064@htj.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150518012602.GB22064@htj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1055
Lines: 29

On 05/18/2015 09:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:39:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> ping
> 
> Does this reflect the comments from the previous review cycle?
> 


This is the V2 version of the V1 pathset.  But it is just the updated
version of the patch1&2 of the V1 patchset.

It doesn't contains the fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store(),
so I can say it reflects all the comments except the name of the function
"get_node_unbound_pwq()" (patch was sent earlier than your replied).
(I wish I can get more comments before the next version).

The fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store() is so important,
should I directly send a patchset for it (including the patch1&2 of this V2 patchset)?
(and delay or even drop the "get_alloc_node_unbound_pwq()").

Thanks,
Lai.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/