Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

[Colin Ian King]

On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
> 
> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
> series.
> 
Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?

Colin