On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:13:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > @@ -156,43 +169,30 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(str > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(atomic_notifier_chain_unregister); > > > > > > > > -/** > > > > - * __atomic_notifier_call_chain - Call functions in an atomic > > > > notifier chain > > > > - * @nh: Pointer to head of the atomic notifier chain > > > > - * @val: Value passed unmodified to notifier function > > > > - * @v: Pointer passed unmodified to notifier function > > > > - * @nr_to_call: See the comment for notifier_call_chain. > > > > - * @nr_calls: See the comment for notifier_call_chain. > > > > - * > > > > - * Calls each function in a notifier chain in turn. The functions > > > > - * run in an atomic context, so they must not block. > > > > - * This routine uses RCU to synchronize with changes to the chain. > > > > - * > > > > - * If the return value of the notifier can be and'ed > > > > - * with %NOTIFY_STOP_MASK then atomic_notifier_call_chain() > > > > - * will return immediately, with the return value of > > > > - * the notifier function which halted execution. > > > > - * Otherwise the return value is the return value > > > > - * of the last notifier function called. > > > > - */ > > > > > > Why remove the useful comment? > > > > Because I delete the whole function ? > > I viewed it as more of a rename... Regardless would the comment not > still be useful for the non-double-underscore version of the function?
I never got that far, I just deleted the whole thing without reading it. But yes, with a few tweaks it should apply to the normal function.
