On 7/4/22 10:05, Zhang Jiaming wrote:
> Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.
Version your patches, you're now at v2. [PATCH v2] ...
Please find a few suggestions below as to what can be fixed in this
block of text as you're making a pass over it.
> @@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
> * superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
> * directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
> * reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
> - * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
> - * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
> - * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
> + * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
held
> + * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
all IO to finish
> + * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
> * there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
> * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
> */
There are several mentions of 'reconfig mutex' that should probably be
'reconfig_mutex'. What's the correct way to refer to a mutex in comments
like the above?
Daniel K.
