On 3/19/21 4:55 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote: > On 16:19 Fri 19 Mar 2021, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 3/19/21 2:39 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote: >>> On 14:27 Fri 19 Mar 2021, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 3/19/21 2:23 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A typo fix and sentence reconstruction for better readability. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Changes from V2: >>>>> Thanks, Randy and Tom for the suggestion,mould it. >>>>> Missed the subject line prefix of pattern,so added back >>>>> >>>>> block/blk-mq-tag.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c >>>>> index 9c92053e704d..9da426d20f12 100644 >>>>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c >>>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c >>>>> @@ -373,8 +373,8 @@ static bool blk_mq_tagset_count_completed_rqs(struct request *rq, >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /** >>>>> - * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all completed req's >>>>> - * complete funtion is run >>>>> + * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all the req's >>>>> + * functions completed their run >>>> >>>> This is still nonsense, see reply to previous version. >>>> >>> Well, I was just trying get a sense of your sense...so ...it's all yours >>> fella,take on ... >> >> It's not my sense, I didn't write that function or comment. Just seems >> pointless to me to update it and not get it actually legible and >> correct, which is why I sent you a suggestion to what should be. From >> that point of view, the suggested change actually makes it _worse_, >> because "requests functions completed their run" doesn't mean anything. >> At least the current one is kind of legible, since the "complete >> function" refers to the IPI completion function, which is what we're >> waiting for here. >> >> In any case, what I replied in v2 should be generally readable, and >> avoids the weird req's thing too which I really dislike. Just uses >> requests, that's correct and avoids a nonsensical possessive. >> >> So do send a v4 if you want with that wording. >> > I am apologetic about the pain I caused you to take this long route. I shall be > prudent in the future. Thanks for standing, Jens. Well, at least the end result pulled it to completion :-) -- Jens Axboe
