On 2018-06-12 08:46:38 [-0700], Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:04 AM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> We had this comment for 6 years or so and nothing happend. What makes > >> you think that an updated version of that comment will motivate someone > >> to make change here in the near future? > > > > Updating the comment is not in itself something to motivate someone to > > change, but we should keep the comment reasonably accurate or get rid. > > > >> It looks to me like a stale comment which won't change a thing because > >> it does not point out the benefit of doing so (re-enabling interrupts > >> while dropping the lock) and the price, that is paid for not doing so > >> (keeping the code as it is) is small enough to not bother. > >> > >> So if updating the comment as suggested instead of keeping it as-is or > >> removing it is the blocker *here* then I can send an updated version. > >> Any comments? > > > > > > I'd prefer an updated comment. > > > > I think we should try to remove the unlock completely. I agree with > Sebastian that the audit is never coming. As it is libsas is the only > ata_port_operations implementation that drops the host_lock while > running ->qc_issue(). Dan, so in meantime I update the comment in patch #1 [0] to say "we should try to remove unlock completely"? [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180611144053.18294-2-bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sebastian
