[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h9hs7mru.fsf@free-electrons.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:22:45 +0100
From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, jason@...edaemon.net,
andrew@...n.ch, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alior@...vell.com,
nadavh@...vell.com, mw@...ihalf.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
w@....eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 5/6] net: mvneta: The mvneta_percpu_elect function should be atomic
Hi David,
On sam., janv. 30 2016, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:26:06 +0100
>
>> @@ -370,6 +370,8 @@ struct mvneta_port {
>> struct net_device *dev;
>> struct notifier_block cpu_notifier;
>> int rxq_def;
>> + /* protect */
>> + spinlock_t lock;
>>
>> /* Core clock */
>> struct clk *clk;
>
> Protect what? This comment needs a lot of improvement.
Sorry about it, this was a left-over.
>
> Everyone knows a spinlock "protects" things, so if you aren't going
> to actually describe what this lock protects, and in what contexts
> the lock is used, you might as well not say anything at all.
I can only agree with you, I will fix it for next version.
Thanks,
Gregory
--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists