Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> @@ -943,6 +953,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(slow_work_register_user);
>   */
>  static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
>  {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>  	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(myself, current);
>  	struct slow_work *work;
>  	int loop;
> @@ -989,6 +1000,7 @@ static void slow_work_wait_for_items(struct module *module)
>  
>  	remove_wait_queue(&slow_work_unreg_wq, &myself);
>  	mutex_unlock(&slow_work_unreg_sync_lock);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
>  }

this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef 
block too.

With that fixed it looks good to me for .33 (but i havent tested it):

  Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>

In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd 
really not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need 
/proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a and why did it have to happen right 
before the final kernel?

If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another 
/proc ABI.

Also, a very small aesthetic detail: i think the title should use the 
'slow-work: ' prefix, not 'SLOW_WORK: '.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/