From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f72.google.com (mail-oi0-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BFF440846 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f72.google.com with SMTP id w126so843412oig.4 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c10si3420356oia.341.2017.08.24.06.46.27 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id c129so2417803oif.2 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:46:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170824132801.GM11771@tardis> References: <20170823152542.5150-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20170823152542.5150-2-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20170824132801.GM11771@tardis> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:46:26 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfit: Use init_completion() in acpi_nfit_flush_probe() Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Boqun Feng Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-MM , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Michel Lespinasse , Byungchul Park , Andrew Morton , willy@infradead.org, Nicholas Piggin , kernel-team@lge.com, Dan Williams , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, ACPI Devel Maling List On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Boqun Feng wrote: >> >> > There is no need to use COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() in >> > acpi_nfit_flush_probe(), replace it with init_completion(). >> >> You completely fail to explain WHY. >> > > I thought COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() should only use in assigment > or compound literals, so the usage here is obviously wrong, but seems > I was wrong? > > Ingo, > > Is the usage of COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() correct? If not, > I could rephrase my commit log saying this is a fix for wrong usage of > COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(), otherwise, I will rewrite the commit > indicating this patch is a necessary dependency for patch #2. Thanks! I think your patch is correct, but your changelog text is useless, as Thomas mentioned: you should instead explain that it breaks with the other fix in the series, and what the difference between init_completion() and COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() is. Arnd -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org