On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
>>>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I would just write "To
>>>>>> avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a
>>>>>> LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function
>>>>>> dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines
>>>>>> of lwlock.c.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Updated the comment.
>>>
>>> Robert actually liked adding the complete routine list. Let's see what
>>> Fujii-san thinks at the end, there is still some time until the next
>>> round of minor releases.
>>
>> What I think is the patch I attached. Thought?
>
> That's OK for me. Thanks.
+1 from me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
