On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:49:48 -0500
Lin Tan <tammy000@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> (I would wish to be personally CC'ed the answers/comments posted to the list in response to my posting.)
> 
> ---
> 
> Removing the wrong comment.
> The lock is needed before calling new_tape_buffer(), at least in some cases.
> So the comment above new_tape_buffer() is inconsistent with the code and
> may mislead developers.
> 
> I simply removed the wrong comment, as I am not sure if the lock is required
> in all situations. If so, we should add "Caller must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lin Tan <tammy000@gmail.com>

Looks true to me for the current versions of the code. In fact it is only
ever called from the initialisation function that I can see so chunks of
the code could simply go away as well as bits of the comment. Ditto the
one in drivers/scsi/st.c

Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/