Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55881-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:13:14 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: yunlong xing <yunlongxing23@gmail.com>
Cc: Yunlong Xing <yunlong.xing@unisoc.com>, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hongyu.jin@unisoc.com,
	zhiguo.niu@unisoc.com, zhengxu.zhang@unisoc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix pool->nr_running type back to atomic
Message-ID: <ZcL1SofG_uul0732@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240206080024.2373490-1-yunlong.xing@unisoc.com>
 <ZcJj2dUUyAY_7XFS@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CA+3AYtQBci3WgTfhSA-8V34qWbnQ23V86rw7rGArGqStdpnVPw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+3AYtQBci3WgTfhSA-8V34qWbnQ23V86rw7rGArGqStdpnVPw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 10:06:56AM +0800, yunlong xing wrote:
> Yes, WARN_ON is triggered. The reason of  set_cpus_allowed_ptr() fail  still
> needs to be further investigated.

I see. Please include context like the above when posting patches.

> I was originally planning to inquire workqueue whether or not allows the worker
> that associated with one cpu running on the other cpus？From your reply，the
> answer of my question is not allow，right？

Yes, you're right. set_cpus_allowed_ptr() shouldn't fail.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun