[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZwjlYY+LxuWINHm@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 16:32:21 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] buffer: Add kernel-doc for block_dirty_folio()
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 01:35:10PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > + * If the folio has buffers, the uptodate buffers are set dirty, to
> > > + * preserve dirty-state coherency between the folio and the buffers.
> > > + * It the folio does not have buffers then when they are later attached
> >
> > s/It the folio/If the folio
> > > + * they will all be set dirty.
> > Is it better to rephrase it slightly as follows:
> >
> > If the folio does not have buffers, they will all be set dirty when they
> > are later attached.
>
> Yes, I like that better.
Actually, how about:
* If the folio has buffers, the uptodate buffers are set dirty, to
* preserve dirty-state coherency between the folio and the buffers.
* Buffers added to a dirty folio are created dirty.
I considered deleting the sentence entirely as it's not actually related
to what the function does; it's just a note about how the buffer cache
behaves. That said, information about how buffer heds work is scant
enough that I don't want to delete it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists