In 75ccf5950f ("workqueue: prepare flush_workqueue() for dynamic
creation and destrucion of unbound pool_workqueues"), a comment
about the synchronization for the pwq in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
was added. The comment claimed the flush_mutex wasn't strictly
necessary, it was correct in that time, due to the pwq was protected
by workqueue_lock.
But it is incorrect now since the wq->flush_mutex was renamed to
wq->mutex and workqueue_lock was removed, the wq->mutex is strictly
needed. But the comment was miss-updated when the synchronization
was changed.
This patch removes the incorrect comments and doesn't add any new
comment to explain why wq->mutex is needed here, which is definitely
obvious and wq->pwqs_node has "WQ" notation in its definition which is
better comment.
The old commit mentioned above also introduced a comment in link_pwq()
about the synchronization. This comment is also removed in this patch
since the whole link_pwq() is proteced by wq->mutex.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
29b1cb416a