From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: [PATCH 1/3] locks: clean up comment typo Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:25:47 -0400 Message-ID: <1376483149-7633-2-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> References: <1376483149-7633-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:56213 "EHLO mail-vb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759808Ab3HNMZ5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:25:57 -0400 Received: by mail-vb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p13so7607696vbe.33 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 05:25:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1376483149-7633-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton --- fs/locks.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index a99adec..9f28359 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter) * it seems like the reasonable thing to do. * * Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block - * list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the + * list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring that the * i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock * in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty. */ -- 1.8.3.1