From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755298AbaGQAyK (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:54:10 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:1060 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753997AbaGQAyI (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:54:08 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.00,905,1396972800"; d="scan'208";a="33382143" Message-ID: <53C71EF3.8010901@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:55:15 +0800 From: Lai Jiangshan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pranith Kumar CC: , , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , "open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Remove stale comment in tree.c References: <1405463509-2468-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> <1405463509-2468-2-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> <20140715225313.GB24290@cloud> <53C5B1F7.3000409@gmail.com> <20140716124729.GR8690@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <53C67E2E.7080402@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <53C67E2E.7080402@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.103] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/16/2014 09:29 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote: > On 07/16/2014 08:47 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:57:59PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >>> >>> On 07/15/2014 06:53 PM, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:31:48PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >>>>> This commit removes a stale comment in rcu/tree.c. >>>>> FYI, an updated comment exists a few lines below this. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar >>>> In general, when removing a stale comment, I'd suggest explaining why >>>> the comment is stale. Was code removed without removing the >>>> corresponding comment, or was code changed such that the comment no >>>> longer applies, or...? >>> >>> I guess it was left out when code was moved around previously. And I did mention that an updated comment is there a few lines below. >>> >>> For reference this is the new comment which is below the old comment, they mean the same :) >>> >>> /* Remove the outgoing CPU from the masks in the rcu_node hierarchy. */ >> >> Indeed that is the case. >> >> Please update the commit log with this explanation and resend. >> >> Thanx, Paul >> > > Please find the updated patch below. > > -- > Pranith > > From: Pranith Kumar > Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:01:05 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Remove stale comment in tree.c > > This commit removes a stale comment in rcu/tree.c which was left out when some > code was moved around previously. Which commit caused this leftover comment? Could you mention that commit in your changlog? 12BitsCmmtID ("commit title...") > > For reference, the following updated comment exists a few lines below this which > means the same. > > /* Remove the outgoing CPU from the masks in the rcu_node hierarchy. */ > > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar > --- > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index a1abaa8..e67246e 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -2211,8 +2211,6 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp) > /* Adjust any no-longer-needed kthreads. */ > rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity(rnp, -1); > > - /* Remove the dead CPU from the bitmasks in the rcu_node hierarchy. */ > - > /* Exclude any attempts to start a new grace period. */ > mutex_lock(&rsp->onoff_mutex); > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rsp->orphan_lock, flags);