Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 05:37:56 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH workqueues] Further upgrade queue_work_on() comment
Message-ID: <ZFpo1OA7hnRaVrgx@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <ae548f82-fd4e-490e-889a-3307b9a2c531@paulmck-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ae548f82-fd4e-490e-889a-3307b9a2c531@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:47:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The current queue_work_on() docbook comment says that the caller must
> ensure that the specified CPU can't go away, and further says that the
> penalty for failing to nail down the specified CPU is that the workqueue
> handler might find itself executing on some other CPU.  This is true
> as far as it goes, but fails to note what happens if the specified CPU
> never was online.  Therefore, further expand this comment to say that
> specifying a CPU that was never online will result in a splat.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

Applied to wq/for-6.5.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun