On Wed 16-06-21 08:47:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:53:04AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 16-06-21 06:37:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:17:57AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > From: Pavel Reichl <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Refactor xfs_isilocked() to use newly introduced __xfs_rwsem_islocked().
> > > > __xfs_rwsem_islocked() is a helper function which encapsulates checking
> > > > state of rw_semaphores hold by inode.
> > >
> > > __xfs_rwsem_islocked doesn't seem to actually existing in any tree I
> > > checked yet?
> >
> > __xfs_rwsem_islocked is introduced by this patch so I'm not sure what are
> > you asking about... :)
>
> The sentence structure implies that __xfs_rwsem_islocked was previously
> introduced. You might change the commit message to read:
>
> "Introduce a new __xfs_rwsem_islocked predicate to encapsulate checking
> the state of a rw_semaphore, then refactor xfs_isilocked to use it."
>
> Since it's not quite a straight copy-paste of the old code.
Ah, ok. Sure, I can rephrase the changelog (or we can just update it on
commit if that's the only problem with this series...). Oh, now I've
remembered I've promised you a branch to pull :) Here it is with this
change and Christoph's Reviewed-by tags:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git hole_punch_fixes
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
