>> Removing the wrong comment.
quoted text
>> 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>
>

I am sorry I didn't quite understand. You mean it is true that caller
must hold os_scsi_tapes_lock?

new_tape_buffer in drivers/scsi/st.c is called without the lock, but
the new_tape_buffer in drivers/scsi/osst.c
is called with the lock. Both comments says no lock is needed. Should
the two new_tap_buffer functions have similar usage?

BTW, I am on the mailing list now, so I no longer need to be
personally CC-ed. Thanks.

Lin
--
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/