Quoting r. Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> makes sense to me; my main concern is that we document the bug that was
> there; unless you document such things.. these bugs tend to have a habit
> of resurfacing later ;)
Right. Although lockdep will catch this one quickly :)
--
MST
-
To unsub
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 14:31 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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,
> > > H
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.
> >
> >
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 point
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 mod
