Quoting r. Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
