From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753643AbYIZQVb@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753643AbYIZQVb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:21:31 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752188AbYIZQVW
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:21:22 -0400
Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:52713 "EHLO
	accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752103AbYIZQVV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:21:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH git latest] drivers/scsi: fixing wrong comment before
	new_buffer_tape()
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
       Kai Makisara <Kai.Makisara@kolumbus.fi>
In-Reply-To: <20080926170937.2983fc29@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
References: <20080925174948.GA14180@carmen.cs.uiuc.edu>
	 <20080926111300.1dd34009@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <7fcc02550809260905oa17880fi80c94eaacb33dba3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080926170937.2983fc29@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:20:56 -0700
Message-Id: <1222446056.3971.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 17:09 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Looks true to me for the current versions of the code. In fact it is only
> > > ever called from the initialisation function that I can see so chunks of
> > > the code could simply go away as well as bits of the comment. Ditto the
> > > one in drivers/scsi/st.c
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
> > >
> > 
> > I am sorry I didn't quite understand. You mean it is true that caller
> > must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock?
> 
> Sorry - I mean what you claim is true - that the comment is incorrect.

So, I think I'm missing a piece of this:  There's no patch in this
thread (I presume it's lurking somewhere on lkml).  Could someone repost
the proposed patch and copy the tape maintainer: Kai Makisara
<Kai.Makisara@kolumbus.fi> to get his input?

Thanks,

James