[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180515135849.GB31296@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:58:49 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/40] proc: introduce proc_create_single{,_data}
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:45:50AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > -/*
> > - * /proc/nubus stuff
> > - */
> > -
>
> I don't think that the introduction of proc_create_single{,_data} alters
> the value of that comment. That comment and similar comments in the same
> file do have a purpose, which is to keep separate the /proc/nubus
> implementation is kept separate from the /proc/bus/nubus/devices
> implementation and so on.
Added back.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists