Subject: Re: problems in linux-next (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 1)

From: Tejun Heo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:00:40 +0900

Hello,

On 12/03/2009 07:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>> For colored workqueue flushing, it ends up using more than three bits.
>> I haven't decided it fully yet but total of six or seven depending on
>> how many colors are used.  So, we need forced alignment anyway.
> 
> If it is that much then why not stick it into the structure?

There'll only be a handful of cwqs but a lot of works.  Adding a flags
field to work_struct might not hurt too much but all the code to
handle it is already there except for alignment on UP, so I'm a bit
reluctant to enlarge work_struct just for it.

> It only makes sense to use the flags in the address if you otherwise
> do not touch the structure.

work_struct isn't being changed at all.  What gets aligned is
cpu_workqueue_struct which allows more bits for flags in work_struct.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun