From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] scsi: avoid taking host_lock in scsi_run_queue unless nessecary Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:19:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20140206161958.GD16916@infradead.org> References: <20140205123930.150608699@bombadil.infradead.org> <20140205124021.085634649@bombadil.infradead.org> <1391644457.2213.68.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:58007 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752726AbaBFQUA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:20:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1391644457.2213.68.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Nicholas Bellinger , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:54:17PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > -/* > > - * Function: scsi_run_queue() > > - * > > - * Purpose: Select a proper request queue to serve next > > - * > > - * Arguments: q - last request's queue > > - * > > - * Returns: Nothing > > - * > > - * Notes: The previous command was completely finished, start > > - * a new one if possible. > > - */ > > Instead of dumping the description, how about converting it to docbook > and making it match the new function? I dropped it because there's nothing that isn't trivially obvious from the code. The point of comments should be to explain why things are done and not have a redundant writeup of what is done. Docbook comments make sense for exported functions but not so much for a static function with a handful of callers.