Re: [PATCH] IB/mthca: comment fix

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 14:31 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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?

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 ;)