[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240110201019.mrmrdelyndweempw@localhost>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:10:19 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
p.raghav@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] buffer: Add kernel-doc for brelse() and __brelse()
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:26:55PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:30:54PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > + * If all buffers on a folio have zero reference count, are clean
> > > + * and unlocked, and if the folio is clean and unlocked then
> >
> > IIUC from your [PATCH 3/8], folio only needs to be unlocked to free the
> > buffers as try_to_free_buffers() will remove the dirty flag and "clean"
> > the folio?
> > So:
> > s/if folio is clean and unlocked/if folio is unlocked
>
> That's a good point. Perhaps "unlocked and not under writeback"
> would be better wording, since that would be true.
Yeah. That sounds good to me!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists