Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Don Mullis <> | Subject | [PATCH 2/2] lib: revise list_sort() comment | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:17:27 -0800 |
| |
Clarify and correct header comment of list_sort().
Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> --- lib/list_sort.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/lib/list_sort.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/lib/list_sort.c 2010-01-19 22:26:03.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6/lib/list_sort.c 2010-01-19 22:28:19.000000000 -0800 @@ -38,17 +38,19 @@ static void restore_back_links(struct li } /** - * list_sort - sort a list. - * @priv: private data, passed to @cmp + * list_sort - sort a list + * @priv: private data, opaque to list_sort(), passed to @cmp * @head: the list to sort * @cmp: the elements comparison function * - * This function implements "merge sort" which has O(nlog(n)) complexity. - * The list is sorted in ascending order. + * This function implements "merge sort", which has O(nlog(n)) + * complexity. * - * The comparison function @cmp is supposed to return a negative value if @a is - * less than @b, and a positive value if @a is greater than @b. If @a and @b - * are equivalent, then it does not matter what this function returns. + * The comparison function @cmp must return a negative value if @a + * should sort before @b, and a positive value if @a should sort after + * @b. If @a and @b are equivalent, and their original relative + * ordering is to be preserved, @cmp should return 0; otherwise, the + * return value does not matter. */ void list_sort(void *priv, struct list_head *head, int (*cmp)(void *priv, struct list_head *a,
| |