[PATCH] erofs: remove WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag from unbound wq's

[Gao Xiang via Linux-erofs <linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>]

From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>

The documentation [1] says that WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is "meaningless" for
unbound wq. I remove this flag from places where unbound queue is
allocated. This is supposed to improve code readability.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/workqueue.html#flags
Signed-off-by: Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
[Gao Xiang: since the original treewide patch [2] hasn't been merged
            yet, handling the EROFS part only for the next cycle. ]
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200213141823.2174236-1-mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de
Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
---
 fs/erofs/zdata.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/erofs/zdata.c b/fs/erofs/zdata.c
index 80bf09c4de09..9ac2723c11bf 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/zdata.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/zdata.c
@@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ void z_erofs_exit_zip_subsystem(void)
 static inline int z_erofs_init_workqueue(void)
 {
 	const unsigned int onlinecpus = num_possible_cpus();
-	const unsigned int flags = WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE;
 
 	/*
 	 * no need to spawn too many threads, limiting threads could minimum
 	 * scheduling overhead, perhaps per-CPU threads should be better?
 	 */
-	z_erofs_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("erofs_unzipd", flags,
+	z_erofs_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("erofs_unzipd",
+					    WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI,
 					    onlinecpus + onlinecpus / 4);
 	return z_erofs_workqueue ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
 }
-- 
2.24.0