> I'm not a fan of this approach. I'd rather the comment explain what > problem was found and patched, and why displaying a warning is not > appropriate. The commented out code just leaves me asking ... why? >
Having the warning here breaks a number of builds, like the linux kernel build. On the other hand the users were curious if the locking sequence was common or not. I'll remove the commented warning for clarity and I will provide to the curious users a patch to get the warning back on for their needs. Thanks, Claudiu
