On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:45:46PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/locks.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index 2cfeea622f28..5e28612120c2 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter) > * it seems like the reasonable thing to do. > * > * Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block > - * list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the > + * list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring that the > * i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock > * in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty. > */ > -- > 1.8.5.3 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
