On Fri, 06/03 16:52, Max Reitz wrote: > On 03.06.2016 11:07, Fam Zheng wrote: > > Somehow in my locking series, I missed this case where concurrent access > > to an image is performed, perhaps we can remove this case independently. > > The patch itself is good, but this commit message will not make much > sense in the git log. I'd be fine with removing it completely because > the title itself should be sufficient. (Which is something I can do in > case you agree.)
Yes, agreed completely. Thanks! Fam
