On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Jason McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19:35AM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote:
>> > doesn;t the code mean the check is for zero, not "less than or equal to
>> > zero"?
>>
>> Oops, you're right.
>
> everything else looks alright. i'll commit it soon if no one objects,
> though i'd prefer it if another developer would ok it.
I don't think we, in general, promise to panic. Note that it won't if
you compile without the DIAGNOSTIC option.
As for the rest of the wording, I think it would be better if it
mirrored the wording of the vhold() description, say:
The vdrop() function decrements the v_holdcnt of the given vnode. If the
vnode is on the vnode hold list and its v_holdcnt and v_usecount
are both zero,
it will be removed from the vnode hold list and added to the free list.
vhold() and vdrop() really are mirrors of each other like that...
Philip
