Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.nfsv4,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.cluster.redhat.cluster.devel,gmane.linux.file-systems.cachefs.general,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.file-systems.cifs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* David Howells <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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