[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1605081808020.3540@nanos>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 18:09:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@...el.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] debugobjects: insulate non-fixup logic related to static
obj from fixup callbacks
On Sun, 8 May 2016, Du, Changbin wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@...utronix.de]
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&db->lock, flags);
> > > /*
> > > - * Maybe the object is static. Let the type specific
> > > + * Maybe the object is static. Let the type specific
> > > * code decide what to do.
> >
> > Instead of doing white space changes you really want to explain the logic
> > here.
> >
> Comments is in following code.
Well. It's a comment, but the code you replace has better explanations about
statically initialized objects. This should move here.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists