summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>2014-07-22 13:04:27 +0800
committerTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>2014-07-22 12:10:39 -0400
commit29b1cb416a2920fbc70041e4382920ae2d86f426 (patch)
treed0571f5bc0132f5a600c066e858a308b105dc729 /kernel
parent13b1d625ef430ab7af059099828e1b9fba622369 (diff)
workqueue: remove the stale comment in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
In 75ccf5950f82 ("workqueue: prepare flush_workqueue() for dynamic creation and destrucion of unbound pool_workqueues"), a comment about the synchronization for the pwq in pwq_unbound_release_workfn() was added. The comment claimed the flush_mutex wasn't strictly necessary, it was correct in that time, due to the pwq was protected by workqueue_lock. But it is incorrect now since the wq->flush_mutex was renamed to wq->mutex and workqueue_lock was removed, the wq->mutex is strictly needed. But the comment was miss-updated when the synchronization was changed. This patch removes the incorrect comments and doesn't add any new comment to explain why wq->mutex is needed here, which is definitely obvious and wq->pwqs_node has "WQ" notation in its definition which is better comment. The old commit mentioned above also introduced a comment in link_pwq() about the synchronization. This comment is also removed in this patch since the whole link_pwq() is proteced by wq->mutex. Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
-rw-r--r--kernel/workqueue.c10
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 4d9600faa400..0732d33d6dd5 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3530,11 +3530,6 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)))
return;
- /*
- * Unlink @pwq. Synchronization against wq->mutex isn't strictly
- * necessary on release but do it anyway. It's easier to verify
- * and consistent with the linking path.
- */
mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs);
@@ -3631,10 +3626,7 @@ static void link_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
if (!list_empty(&pwq->pwqs_node))
return;
- /*
- * Set the matching work_color. This is synchronized with
- * wq->mutex to avoid confusing flush_workqueue().
- */
+ /* set the matching work_color */
pwq->work_color = wq->work_color;
/* sync max_active to the current setting */