>> 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> > I am sorry I didn't quite understand. You mean it is true that caller must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock? new_tape_buffer in drivers/scsi/st.c is called without the lock, but the new_tape_buffer in drivers/scsi/osst.c is called with the lock. Both comments says no lock is needed. Should the two new_tap_buffer functions have similar usage? BTW, I am on the mailing list now, so I no longer need to be personally CC-ed. Thanks. Lin -- 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
