On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 01:39:00PM +0100, Vineeth Vijayan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/23 12:57, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > The lock member of struct subchannel used to be a spinlock, but became
> > a pointer to a spinlock with commit 2ec2298412e1 ("[S390] subchannel
> > lock conversion."). This might have been justified back then, but with
> > the current state of affairs, there is no reason to manage a separate
> > spinlock object.
> >
> > Let's simplify things and pull the spinlock back into struct subchannel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic<pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > I know it is a lot of churn, but I do believe in the end it does make
> > the code more maintainable.
>
> You are right. Makes the code easy to read and a bit less complex.
> Looks good to me. Thanks
>
> Reviewed-by: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied, thank you.
