Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
 alloc_workqueue call
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210318151626.17442-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <13a1d187-4d6d-9e06-b94a-553d872de756@kernel.dk>
 <62cd71bc-86e1-412d-b2b9-716c0f8021be@canonical.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <d32641ca-e34a-2bfd-9b86-28c95546f434@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:42:33 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <62cd71bc-86e1-412d-b2b9-716c0f8021be@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>>
>> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
>> series.
>>
> Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?

If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.

-- 
Jens Axboe