[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZ7TX/f5/+svtB6i@casper.infradead.org>
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists