linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix function name in comment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 02 May 2019 13:56:49 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix function name in comment

On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 14:51 -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:33:45PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 13:48 -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote:
> > > The comment was out of date.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  block/blk-mq.c | 2 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > index 9516304a38ee..0e467ff440a2 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > index 9516304a38ee..0e467ff440a2 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > @@ -2062,7 +2062,7 @@ void blk_mq_free_rqs(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set, struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
> > >                 list_del_init(&page->lru);
> > >                 /*
> > >                  * Remove kmemleak object previously allocated in
> > > -                * blk_mq_init_rq_map().
> > > +                * blk_mq_alloc_rqs().
> > >                  */
> > >                 kmemleak_free(page_address(page));
> > >                 __free_pages(page, page->private);
> > 
> > Does the entire comment fit on a single 80 column line? In other words, can
> > the comment that is spread over four lines be reduced to a single line?
> 
> No, it would put it at 91 characters long.

That's unfortunate ...