Commit 854f5cc5 authored by Paul E. McKenney's avatar Paul E. McKenney Committed by Tejun Heo

Further upgrade queue_work_on() comment

The current queue_work_on() docbook comment says that the caller must
ensure that the specified CPU can't go away, and further says that the
penalty for failing to nail down the specified CPU is that the workqueue
handler might find itself executing on some other CPU.  This is true
as far as it goes, but fails to note what happens if the specified CPU
never was online.  Therefore, further expand this comment to say that
specifying a CPU that was never online will result in a splat.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
parent ba0ad6ed
......@@ -1539,6 +1539,8 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
* We queue the work to a specific CPU, the caller must ensure it
* can't go away. Callers that fail to ensure that the specified
* CPU cannot go away will execute on a randomly chosen CPU.
* But note well that callers specifying a CPU that never has been
* online will get a splat.
*
* Return: %false if @work was already on a queue, %true otherwise.
*/
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment