Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:31:12 +0300 | From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IB/mthca: comment fix |
| |
Quoting r. Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mthca: comment fix > > On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 14:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Here's a cosmetic patch for IB/mthca. Pls drop it into -mm and on. > > > > --- > > > > comment in mthca_qp.c makes it seem lockdep is the only reason WQ locks should > > be initialized separately, but as Zach Brown and Roland pointed out, there are > > other reasons, e.g. that mthca_wq_init is called from modify qp as well. > > ehh.. shouldn't the comment say that instead then? that's one tricky > thing and might as well have that documented in the code!
Hmm. Okay. Maybe we should rename mthca_wq_init to mthca_wq_reset? This would make it clear that it does not init the spinlocks, but just resets the rest of the fields, would not it?
How does this sound?
-- MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |