On 3/8/22 05:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
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.
*/
Perfect, you write better English than me!
Regards,
Halil
