From: Linus T. <tor...@li...> - 2009-07-07 20:32:39
|
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Krzysztof Helt wrote: > > Remove redundant locking by the mm_lock mutex before a second head of matrox > framebuffer is registered. Why do you write misleading commentary like this. > +/* > + * This function is called before the register_framebuffer so > + * no locking is needed. > + */ Or this? It's not about "needed". The locking is not only not needed, it would be BUGGY. And it's not "redundant". That implies that it's done somewhere else. It's more than "not needed" - it would be actively buggy to lock things there. I really don't like how you're approaching this. You're ignoring the real issues I ask you, you're writing misleading comments and commit messages, and the end result is fragile code. I still don't understand why you insist on initializing those things late, which is the primary problem here. Linus |