On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:49:48 -0500 Lin Tan <tammy000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (I would wish to be personally CC'ed the answers/comments posted to the list in response to my posting.) > > --- > > Removing the wrong comment. > The lock is needed before calling new_tape_buffer(), at least in some cases. > So the comment above new_tape_buffer() is inconsistent with the code and > may mislead developers. > > I simply removed the wrong comment, as I am not sure if the lock is required > in all situations. If so, we should add "Caller must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock". > > Signed-off-by: Lin Tan <tammy000@xxxxxxxxx> Looks true to me for the current versions of the code. In fact it is only ever called from the initialisation function that I can see so chunks of the code could simply go away as well as bits of the comment. Ditto the one in drivers/scsi/st.c Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
