lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH v5 02/14] locks: clean up comment typo
Date
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
fs/locks.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 2cfeea6..5e28612 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
* it seems like the reasonable thing to do.
*
* Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block
- * list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the
+ * list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring that the
* i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock
* in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty.
*/
--
1.8.4.2


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-09 16:01    [W:0.125 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site