From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 01:18:41 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix flag collision
References: bnc#1060662
Patch-mainline: v4.12.12
Git-commit: fbf1c41fc0f4d3574ac2377245efd666c1fa3075

commit fbf1c41fc0f4d3574ac2377245efd666c1fa3075 upstream.

Commit 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be
overridable") introduced a __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT flag but gave it the
same value as __WQ_LEGACY.  I don't believe these were intended to
mean the same thing, so renumber __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT.

Fixes: 0a94efb5acbb ("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be ...")
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
---
 include/linux/workqueue.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h
index db6dc9dc0482..1c49431f3121 100644
--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -323,8 +323,8 @@ enum {
 
 	__WQ_DRAINING		= 1 << 16, /* internal: workqueue is draining */
 	__WQ_ORDERED		= 1 << 17, /* internal: workqueue is ordered */
-	__WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT	= 1 << 18, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
 	__WQ_LEGACY		= 1 << 18, /* internal: create*_workqueue() */
+	__WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT	= 1 << 19, /* internal: alloc_ordered_workqueue() */
 
 	WQ_MAX_ACTIVE		= 512,	  /* I like 512, better ideas? */
 	WQ_MAX_UNBOUND_PER_CPU	= 4,	  /* 4 * #cpus for unbound wq */
-- 
2.14.2