Hi Tejun, On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:12:33 -0700 Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 01:19:38PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > @@@ -456,40 -462,30 +462,30 @@@ static int worker_pool_assign_id(struc > > { > > int ret; > > > > - mutex_lock(&worker_pool_idr_mutex); > > - ret = idr_alloc(&worker_pool_idr, pool, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL); > > - if (ret >= 0) > > - pool->id = ret; > > - mutex_unlock(&worker_pool_idr_mutex); > > + lockdep_assert_held(&wq_mutex); > > + > > + do { > > - if (!idr_pre_get(&worker_pool_idr, GFP_KERNEL)) > > - return -ENOMEM; > > - ret = idr_get_new(&worker_pool_idr, pool, &pool->id); > > ++ ret = idr_alloc(&worker_pool_idr, pool, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL); > > ++ if (ret >= 0) > > ++ pool->id = ret; > > + } while (ret == -EAGAIN); > > > > - return ret; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > We don't need the loop anymore, so it should look like > > static int worker_pool_assign_id(struct worker_pool *pool) > { > int ret; > > lockdep_assert_held(&wq_mutex); > > ret = idr_alloc(&worker_pool_idr, pool, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL); > if (ret >= 0) { > pool->id = ret; > return 0; > } > return ret; > } > > Anyways, I pulled master into wq/for-next and resolved it there, so it > shouldn't cause you any more trouble. Ah, OK, thanks. One small point, when you do a back merge like that, you should always put an explanation in the commit message for the merge. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au