提交 8427672a 编写于 作者: J Jacob Keller 提交者: Jeff Kirsher

fm10k: remove comment about rtnl_lock around mbx operations

This comment is no longer true due to a couple of mailbox locking
refactors, and we now don't actually do any rtnl protected operations
directly in the mailbox path. Remove this comment as it is factually
incorrect and confusing.
Signed-off-by: NJacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Tested-by: NKrishneil Singh <krishneil.k.singh@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
上级 99cb99aa
无相关合并请求
......@@ -274,8 +274,6 @@ static void fm10k_watchdog_update_host_state(struct fm10k_intfc *interface)
* @interface: board private structure
*
* This function will process both the upstream and downstream mailboxes.
* It is necessary for us to hold the rtnl_lock while doing this as the
* mailbox accesses are protected by this lock.
**/
static void fm10k_mbx_subtask(struct fm10k_intfc *interface)
{
......@@ -498,7 +496,7 @@ static void fm10k_service_task(struct work_struct *work)
interface = container_of(work, struct fm10k_intfc, service_task);
/* tasks always capable of running, but must be rtnl protected */
/* tasks run even when interface is down */
fm10k_mbx_subtask(interface);
fm10k_detach_subtask(interface);
fm10k_reset_subtask(interface);
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册
反馈
建议
客服 返回
顶部