From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wangyijing Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:51:32 +0800 Message-ID: <5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com> References: <1466561534-17595-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Coly Li , axboe@fb.com, Kent Overstreet Cc: Eric Wheeler , Coly Li , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi Coly, thanks to your review and comments. Commit 77b5a08427e875 ("bcache: don't embed 'return' statements in clos= ure macros") remove the return in continue_at(), so I think we should update the doc= ument info about continue_at(). Thanks! Yijing. =D4=DA 2016/6/29 18:16, Coly Li =D0=B4=B5=C0: > =D4=DA 16/6/22 =C9=CF=CE=E710:12, Yijing Wang =D0=B4=B5=C0: >> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation. >> >=20 > There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo= , > it is correct. >=20 > But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in y= our > patch is, >> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the > calling function. >> - * There's good reason for this. >> - * >=20 > I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does no= t > mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the > bellowed lines explains the reason. >=20 >> Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang >> --- >> drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 2 +- >> drivers/md/bcache/closure.h | 3 --- >> 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure= =2Ec >> index 9eaf1d6..864e673 100644 >> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c >> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c >> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ bool closure_wait(struct closure_waitlist *waitl= ist, struct closure *cl) >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait); >> =20 >> /** >> - * closure_sync - sleep until a closure a closure has nothing left = to wait on >> + * closure_sync - sleep until a closure has nothing left to wait on >=20 > Yes, this modification is good. >=20 >> * >> * Sleeps until the refcount hits 1 - the thread that's running the= closure owns >> * the last refcount. >> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h b/drivers/md/bcache/closure= =2Eh >> index 782cc2c..f51188d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h >> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h >> @@ -31,9 +31,6 @@ >> * passing it, as you might expect, the function to run when nothin= g is pending >> * and the workqueue to run that function out of. >> * >> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the call= ing function. >> - * There's good reason for this. >> - * >> * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a r= efcount while >> * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Other= wise, suppose >> * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they a= ll complete: >> >=20 >=20