From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754637AbYIYSuI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:50:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753196AbYIYSt5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:49:57 -0400 Received: from dcs-mx1.cs.uiuc.edu ([128.174.252.81]:45661 "EHLO dcs-mx1.cs.uiuc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753048AbYIYSt4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:49:56 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 3607 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:49:56 EDT Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:49:48 -0500 From: Lin Tan To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH git latest] drivers/scsi: fixing wrong comment before new_buffer_tape() Message-ID: <20080925174948.GA14180@carmen.cs.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (I would wish to be personally CC'ed the answers/comments posted to the list in response to my posting.) --- Removing the wrong comment. The lock is needed before calling new_tape_buffer(), at least in some cases. So the comment above new_tape_buffer() is inconsistent with the code and may mislead developers. I simply removed the wrong comment, as I am not sure if the lock is required in all situations. If so, we should add "Caller must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock". Signed-off-by: Lin Tan --- --- a/drivers/scsi/osst.c 2008-09-25 11:53:09.000000000 -0500 +++ b/drivers/scsi/osst.c 2008-09-25 11:59:46.000000000 -0500 @@ -5209,7 +5209,7 @@ /* Memory handling routines */ -/* Try to allocate a new tape buffer skeleton. Caller must not hold os_scsi_tapes_lock */ +/* Try to allocate a new tape buffer skeleton. */ static struct osst_buffer * new_tape_buffer( int from_initialization, int need_dma, int max_sg ) { int i;