On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 18:45:45 -0500 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [..] > >>> s/belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix/are fields of the matrix_mdev > >>> object/ > >> This is the comment I wrote: > >> > >> /* > >> * Comparing an mdev's newly updated apm/aqm with itself would > >> * result in a false positive when verifying whether any APQNs > >> * are shared; so, if the input apm and aqm belong to the > >> * matrix_mdev's matrix, then move on to the next one. > >> */ > >> > >> However, I'd be happy to change it to whatever either of you want. > > What ain't obvious for the comment is that "belong to" actually means > > composition and not association. In other words, there there is no > > pointer/indirection involved, a pointer that would tell us what matrix > > does belong to what matrix_mdev, but rather the matrix is just a part > > of the matrix_mdev object. > > > > I don't like 'false positive' either, and whether the apm/aqm is > > newly updated or not is also redundant and confusing in my opinion. When > > we check because of inuse there is not updated whatever. IMHO the old > > message was better than this one. > > > > Just my opinion, if you two agree, that this is the way to go, I'm fine > > with that. > > > > Regards, > > Halil > > Feel free to recommend the verbiage for this comment. I'm not married > to my comments and am open to anything that helps others to > understand what is going on here. It seems obvious to me, but I wrote > the code. Obviously, it is not so obvious based on Jason's comments, > so maybe someone else can compose a better comment. /* * If the input apm and aqm are fields of the matrix_mdev object, * then move on to the next matrix_mdev. */ Regards, Halil
