Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5017f565-1047-6f0c-e578-e8ed9d31802f@deltatee.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 11:36:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-CA
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Cai Huoqing <cai.huoqing@linux.dev>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230328173448.GA2952425@bhelgaas>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230328173448.GA2952425@bhelgaas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix the comments on pci_p2pmem_find_many()
Precedence: bulk


On 2023-03-28 11:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 07:06:10PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote:
>> Remove pci_p2pmem_dma() reference,
>> because pci_p2pmem_dma() method is already removed.
> 
> AFAICT, pci_p2pmem_dma() *never* existed.  I suppose it was a typo,
> and pci_p2pdma_distance_many() was intended?
> 
> I'm happy to either merge this patch (with an updated commit log) to
> remove the comment text or merge a patch correct the comment text.
> 
> I just don't want to merge this with a commit log that says we removed
> the pci_p2pmem_dma() method when it never actually existed.

Ah, yes that's fair. I thought pci_p2pmem_dma() was an odd function
name. Good to confirm it never existed.

Thanks,

Logan