Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, On 2018/3/2 10:16, piaojun wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Jun, >> I think the comments for both two functions are OK. >> No need to rework them. >> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including >> block number. > I

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Changwei and Jun, Thanks for your advice. On 03/02/2018 10:15 AM, piaojun wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Jun, >> I think the comments for both two functions are OK. >> No need to rework them. >> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Changwei, On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote: > Hi Jun, > I think the comments for both two functions are OK. > No need to rework them. > As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including > block number. I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, I think the comments for both two functions are OK. No need to rework them. As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including block number. Thanks, Changw2ei On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote: > Hi Larry, > > There is the same mistake in

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Larry, There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help fixing them all? thanks, Jun On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. > > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Larry, On 2018/2/28 18:18, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. As ocfs2's lock name includes block number, so I think the comment you want to rework is all right. So nack. Thanks, Changwei > > Signed-off-by: