From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: [PATCH v4 02/13] locks: clean up comment typo Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:34:14 -0500 Message-ID: <1387460065-28269-3-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> References: <1387460065-28269-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Cc: nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1387460065-28269-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: samba-technical-bounces@lists.samba.org Errors-To: samba-technical-bounces@lists.samba.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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 2cfeea6..5e28612 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. */ -- 1.8.4.2