Hi Andrew, Patrick, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: >> Hi Patrick, >> >> Two comments below. >> >> Patrick Uiterwijk <patr...@puiterwijk.org> writes: >> >> > +static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds) >> >> Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name >> should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes). > > We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _ > prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and > lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice. OK, I didn't know that. This makes sense. There is no need to respin a v3 only for my previous &= comment then. Thanks, -v
