On 3/19/21 2:39 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:I am apologetic about the pain I caused you to take this long route. I shall be
On 14:27 Fri 19 Mar 2021, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 3/19/21 2:23 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:Well, I was just trying get a sense of your sense...so ...it's all yours
A typo fix and sentence reconstruction for better readability.
Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes from V2:
Thanks, Randy and Tom for the suggestion,mould it.
Missed the subject line prefix of pattern,so added back
block/blk-mq-tag.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 9c92053e704d..9da426d20f12 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -373,8 +373,8 @@ static bool blk_mq_tagset_count_completed_rqs(struct request *rq,
}
/**
- * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all completed req's
- * complete funtion is run
+ * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all the req's
+ * functions completed their run
This is still nonsense, see reply to previous version.
fella,take on ...
It's not my sense, I didn't write that function or comment. Just seems
pointless to me to update it and not get it actually legible and
correct, which is why I sent you a suggestion to what should be. From
that point of view, the suggested change actually makes it _worse_,
because "requests functions completed their run" doesn't mean anything.
At least the current one is kind of legible, since the "complete
function" refers to the IPI completion function, which is what we're
waiting for here.
In any case, what I replied in v2 should be generally readable, and
avoids the weird req's thing too which I really dislike. Just uses
requests, that's correct and avoids a nonsensical possessive.
So do send a v4 if you want with that wording.
--
Jens Axboe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature