[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211106122517.3304628-4-chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 20:25:08 +0800
From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To: <richard@....at>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
<mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<chengzhihao1@...wei.com>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 03/12] ubifs: Fix wrong number of inodes locked by ui_mutex in ubifs_inode comment
Since 9ec64962afb1702f75b("ubifs: Implement RENAME_EXCHANGE") and
9e0a1fff8db56eaaebb("ubifs: Implement RENAME_WHITEOUT") are applied,
ubifs_rename locks and changes 4 ubifs inodes, correct the comment
for ui_mutex in ubifs_inode.
Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
---
fs/ubifs/ubifs.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ubifs/ubifs.h b/fs/ubifs/ubifs.h
index c38066ce9ab0..972e41daff01 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/ubifs.h
+++ b/fs/ubifs/ubifs.h
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ struct ubifs_gced_idx_leb {
* @ui_mutex exists for two main reasons. At first it prevents inodes from
* being written back while UBIFS changing them, being in the middle of an VFS
* operation. This way UBIFS makes sure the inode fields are consistent. For
- * example, in 'ubifs_rename()' we change 3 inodes simultaneously, and
+ * example, in 'ubifs_rename()' we change 4 inodes simultaneously, and
* write-back must not write any of them before we have finished.
*
* The second reason is budgeting - UBIFS has to budget all operations. If an
--
2.31.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists