Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
- "obtain" function look up a pointer in the
Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
- "obtain" function look up a pointer in the
On Mon, 09 Jul 2018, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2018, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
- "obtain" function look up a pointer in the
Both the comment and the name of ipcctl_pre_down_nolock()
are misleading: The function must be called while holdling
the rw semaphore.
Therefore the patch renames the function to ipcctl_obtain_check():
This name matches the other names used in util.c:
- "obtain" function look up a pointer in the
6 matches
Mail list logo