[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190925134706.GA157912@architecture4>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:47:06 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
CC: <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix comment of f2fs_evict_inode
Hi Chao,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:30:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> evict() should be called once i_count is zero, rather than i_nlinke
> is zero.
>
> Reported-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index db4fec30c30d..8262f4a483d3 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Called at the last iput() if i_nlink is zero
> + * Called at the last iput() if i_count is zero
Yeah, I'd suggest taking some time to look at other
inconsistent comments, it makes other folks confused
and ask me with such-"strong" reason...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
> */
> void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> --
> 2.18.0.rc1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists