From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752038AbcGACAa (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:00:30 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.52]:38268 "EHLO szxga04-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751793AbcGACA2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:00:28 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 325 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:00:25 EDT Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info To: Coly Li , , Kent Overstreet References: <1466561534-17595-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> CC: Eric Wheeler , Coly Li , , , From: wangyijing Message-ID: <5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:51:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.23.4] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.5775CCB0.004B,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0a66785b8aeac1b1d0a7fc4517b6ae84 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Coly, thanks to your review and comments. Commit 77b5a08427e875 ("bcache: don't embed 'return' statements in closure macros") remove the return in continue_at(), so I think we should update the document info about continue_at(). Thanks! Yijing. 在 2016/6/29 18:16, Coly Li 写道: > 在 16/6/22 上午10:12, Yijing Wang 写道: >> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation. >> > > There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo, > it is correct. > > But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in your > patch is, >> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the > calling function. >> - * There's good reason for this. >> - * > > I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does not > mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the > bellowed lines explains the reason. > >> 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.c >> 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 *waitlist, struct closure *cl) >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait); >> >> /** >> - * 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 > > Yes, this modification is good. > >> * >> * 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.h >> 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 nothing is pending >> * and the workqueue to run that function out of. >> * >> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the calling function. >> - * There's good reason for this. >> - * >> * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a refcount while >> * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Otherwise, suppose >> * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they all complete: >> > >