Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Chao Liu <chaoliu719@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yue Hu <huyue2@coolpad.com>,
        Wayne Zhang <zhangwen@coolpad.com>,
        Chao Liu <liuchao@coolpad.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: filesystems: f2fs: fix description about
 compress ioctl
In-Reply-To: <Yqbu+BArbUNGvft9@liuchao-VM>
References: <20220613020800.3379482-1-chaoliu719@gmail.com>
 <Yqaw3VTD46PAMN8O@casper.infradead.org> <Yqbu+BArbUNGvft9@liuchao-VM>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:23:07 -0600
Message-ID: <87czfc1nr8.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Chao Liu <chaoliu719@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:37:01AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:08:00AM +0800, Chao Liu wrote:
>> > v2:
>> > - s/file size/filesize/
>>
>> Why would you change it to be wrong?
>>
>
> This is a suggestion from Chao Yu. Maybe he has some other considerations.

Sorry, I should have replied to that.  I disagree with that suggestion.
"Filesize" is not an English word, and there doesn't seem to be any
reason to use it in our docs.

<checks>

We have to occurrences now - one already in the f2fs docs.  I think we
shouldn't add more.  So my plan is to apply the first version of this
patch.  Chao Liu: is there a reason why you didn't add the Reviewed-by
from Chao Yu in the second version?  Chao Yu: is that tag still
applicable even without the "filesize" change?

Thanks,

jon