linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] buffer: Add kernel-doc for brelse() and _

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:26:55 +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,
	p.raghav@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] buffer: Add kernel-doc for brelse() and __brelse()

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.