On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 07:23 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 1/24/23 06:30, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * scsi_device_put_nosleep - release a reference to a
> > scsi_device
> > + * @sdev: device to release a reference on.
> > + *
> > + * Description: Release a reference to the scsi_device and
> > decrements the use
> > + * count of the underlying LLDD module. This function may only be
> > called from
> > + * a call context where it is certain that the reference dropped
> > is not the
> > + * last one.
> > + */
>
> The above comment does not cover the call from scsi_device_put().
> That
> could be addressed by adding the following text at the end of the
> above
> comment: " or from a context in which it is allowed to sleep".
> However,
> if that text would be added the function name
> ("scsi_device_put_nosleep()") would become confusing. How about
> open-coding scsi_device_put_nosleep() in scsi_device_put() to prevent
> this confusion?
Or simply mentioning that the call from scsi_device_put() is legal?
Martin
