From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: [PATCH v5 02/14] locks: clean up comment typo Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:19:35 -0500 Message-ID: <1389277187-18211-3-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> References: <1389277187-18211-1-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: Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com ([209.85.128.53]:57401 "EHLO mail-qe0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754835AbaAIOUD (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:20:03 -0500 Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id t7so3113759qeb.26 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:20:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1389277187-18211-1-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 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