From 46dad7603f21d64207820580c0bafd47934686d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jeff Layton Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:13:06 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] locks: clean up comment typo Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton --- fs/locks.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index 2cfeea622f28..5e28612120c2 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter) * it seems like the reasonable thing to do. * * Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block - * list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the + * list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring that the * i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock * in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty. */ -- 2.20.1