[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

[piaojun]

Hi Changwei,

On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote:
> Hi Jun,
> I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
> No need to rework them.
> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including 
> block number.
I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found 'lockid' is a
concept in dlm level, so ocfs2 level should not be aware of it.

thanks,
Jun
> 
> Thanks,
> Changw2ei
> 
> On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help
>> fixing them all?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jun
>>
>> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <lchen at suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>   fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>>>   	if (*bh2)
>>>   		*bh2 = NULL;
>>>   
>>> -	/* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>>> +	/* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>>>   	 * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>>>   	if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>>>   		inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>
> .
>