Re: [PATCH V3] blk-mq: Trivial typo fix and sentence construction for better readability

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 3/19/21 4:55 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
> On 16:19 Fri 19 Mar 2021, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/19/21 2:39 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>>> On 14:27 Fri 19 Mar 2021, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/21 2:23 PM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A typo fix and sentence reconstruction for better readability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   Changes from V2:
>>>>>   Thanks, Randy and Tom for the suggestion,mould it.
>>>>>   Missed the subject line prefix of pattern,so added back
>>>>>
>>>>>  block/blk-mq-tag.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>>> index 9c92053e704d..9da426d20f12 100644
>>>>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>>> @@ -373,8 +373,8 @@ static bool blk_mq_tagset_count_completed_rqs(struct request *rq,
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>>  /**
>>>>> - * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all completed req's
>>>>> - * complete funtion is run
>>>>> + * blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request - wait until all the req's
>>>>> + * functions completed their run
>>>>
>>>> This is still nonsense, see reply to previous version.
>>>>
>>> Well, I was just trying get a sense of your sense...so ...it's all yours
>>> fella,take on ...
>>
>> It's not my sense, I didn't write that function or comment. Just seems
>> pointless to me to update it and not get it actually legible and
>> correct, which is why I sent you a suggestion to what should be. From
>> that point of view, the suggested change actually makes it _worse_,
>> because "requests functions completed their run" doesn't mean anything.
>> At least the current one is kind of legible, since the "complete
>> function" refers to the IPI completion function, which is what we're
>> waiting for here.
>>
>> In any case, what I replied in v2 should be generally readable, and
>> avoids the weird req's thing too which I really dislike. Just uses
>> requests, that's correct and avoids a nonsensical possessive.
>>
>> So do send a v4 if you want with that wording.
>>
> I am apologetic about the pain I caused you to take this long route. I shall be
>   prudent in the future. Thanks for standing, Jens.

Well, at least the end result pulled it to completion :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe