[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0C18FE92A7765D4EB9EE5D38D86A563A05D2E064@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 03:02:55 +0000
From: "Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@...utronix.de]
> 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
Ok, let me improve the comment for patch v2.
Best Regards,
Du, Changbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists