Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments

Hugh Dickins writes:

> Update comments (only) on page_table_lock and mmap_sem in arch/powerpc.

[snip]

>  	/*
> -	 * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here because all who
> -	 * might be updating the pte will hold the
> -	 * page_table_lock
> +	 * No need to use ldarx/stdcx here
>  	 */

If you're going to remove the because clause you might as well remove
the whole comment.  What you have left is either redundant or
mystifying (according to the depth of knowledge of the reader).  And
in fact I don't think I could now say why we don't need an atomic
update sequence there, so I would appreciate something that updates
the "because" part.

Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/5] mm: flotsam
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/12] mm: optimisations
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]