Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add comment explaining task state setting in bdi_forker_thread()

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:53:47 +0200
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:

> On Mon 05-09-11 20:44:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:01:41PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Sun 04-09-11 11:05:51, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > @@ -401,6 +401,13 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
> > > > >  		}
> > > > >  
> > > > >  		spin_lock_bh(&bdi_lock);
> > > > > +		/*
> > > > > +		 * In the following loop we are going to check whether we have
> > > > > +		 * some work to do without any synchronization with tasks
> > > > > +		 * waking us up to do work for them. So we have to set task
> > > > > +		 * state already here so that we don't miss wakeups coming
> > > > 
> > > > s/already/early/ ?
> > >   Thanks for review. We'd have to substitute 'already here' with 'early'
> > > for the sentence to make make sense. But frankly I don't see why one would
> > > be better than the other one...
> > 
> > You are the native English speaker?  OK, I have no more problems... ;)
>   No, I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe that's why I don't see that
> much difference :-))

grammar can often be fixed/improved by deleting stuff ;)

--- a/mm/backing-dev.c~mm-add-comment-explaining-task-state-setting-in-bdi_forker_thread-fix
+++ a/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -404,9 +404,8 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
 		/*
 		 * In the following loop we are going to check whether we have
 		 * some work to do without any synchronization with tasks
-		 * waking us up to do work for them. So we have to set task
-		 * state already here so that we don't miss wakeups coming
-		 * after we verify some condition.
+		 * waking us up to do work for them. Set the task state here
+		 * so that we don't miss wakeups after verifying conditions.
 		 */
 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 
_