From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/: possible cleanups Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:41:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20051002144113.GM4212@stusta.de> References: <20051001142041.GB4212@stusta.de> <20051001164019.GB8633@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Alexey Dobriyan Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051001164019.GB8633@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 08:40:19PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 04:20:41PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > -/* Just increments the mechanism's reference count and returns its input: */ > > -struct gss_api_mech * gss_mech_get(struct gss_api_mech *); > > - > > > -struct gss_api_mech * > > +static struct gss_api_mech * > > gss_mech_get(struct gss_api_mech *gm) > > Comment is lost. The comment made sense for the prototype at the header, but the function now has only one caller in the file where it's defined. If someone needs a comment to figure out what a function whose complete contents is static struct gss_api_mech * gss_mech_get(struct gss_api_mech *gm) { __module_get(gm->gm_owner); return gm; } does, the problem is not a missing comment. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed