comment typo for generic_make_request in 2.5.1-pre2?

comment typo for generic_make_request in 2.5.1-pre2?

[David Mansfield]

Hi Jens et al,

Just looking at the bio changes in pre2 and I came across the comment for 
generic_make_request that says it may change bi_dev and/or bi_rsector.  I 
think the bi_rsector is supposed to be bi_sector (since the former no 
longer exists).  Here's a patch if in fact this is just a typo:

--- ll_rw_blk.c.orig	Tue Nov 27 14:57:40 2001
+++ ll_rw_blk.c	Tue Nov 27 15:02:23 2001
@@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@
  *
  * generic_make_request and the drivers it calls may use bi_next if this
  * bio happens to be merged with someone else, and may change bi_dev and
- * bi_rsector for remaps as it sees fit.  So the values of these fields
+ * bi_sector for remaps as it sees fit.  So the values of these fields
  * should NOT be depended on after the call to generic_make_request.
  *
  * */

It's really no big deal, but I guess even the comments deserve to be 
correct. Anyway, this stuff is certainly fun reading!

David

-- 
/==============================\
| David Mansfield              |
| david@cobite.com             |
\==============================/

Re: comment typo for generic_make_request in 2.5.1-pre2?

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Nov 27 2001, David Mansfield wrote:
> 
> Hi Jens et al,
> 
> Just looking at the bio changes in pre2 and I came across the comment for 
> generic_make_request that says it may change bi_dev and/or bi_rsector.  I 
> think the bi_rsector is supposed to be bi_sector (since the former no 
> longer exists).  Here's a patch if in fact this is just a typo:
> 
> --- ll_rw_blk.c.orig	Tue Nov 27 14:57:40 2001
> +++ ll_rw_blk.c	Tue Nov 27 15:02:23 2001
> @@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@
>   *
>   * generic_make_request and the drivers it calls may use bi_next if this
>   * bio happens to be merged with someone else, and may change bi_dev and
> - * bi_rsector for remaps as it sees fit.  So the values of these fields
> + * bi_sector for remaps as it sees fit.  So the values of these fields
>   * should NOT be depended on after the call to generic_make_request.
>   *
>   * */

Thanks, applied.

> It's really no big deal, but I guess even the comments deserve to be 
> correct. Anyway, this stuff is certainly fun reading!

Good :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe