Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Resolve static check error in lpfc_nvmet.c

2018-03-10 Thread James Smart

On 3/9/2018 5:23 PM, James Bottomley wrote:

Really, the commit message has to be descriptive.  This makes me think
this is about some annoying policy of making everything static rather
than a critical bug.

What's wrong with

lpfc: add missing unlock on defer WQFULL path

?  You can then expand on the static checker discovery in the main
message.

Since this looks to be a pretty common occurrence, perhaps this should
be folded with a rebase?

James



yeah - the title was pretty poor. Too long of a day on a friday. 
reposted a v2.


-- james



Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Resolve static check error in lpfc_nvmet.c

2018-03-09 Thread James Bottomley
Really, the commit message has to be descriptive.  This makes me think
this is about some annoying policy of making everything static rather
than a critical bug.

What's wrong with

lpfc: add missing unlock on defer WQFULL path

?  You can then expand on the static checker discovery in the main
message.

Since this looks to be a pretty common occurrence, perhaps this should
be folded with a rebase?

James