Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19622-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:31:17 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
To: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] buffer: Add kernel-doc for block_dirty_folio()
Message-ID: <20240108133117.xtkbzeiqq6dtesm5@localhost>
References: <20240104163652.3705753-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20240104163652.3705753-3-willy@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240104163652.3705753-3-willy@infradead.org>

> + * 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.

> + *
> + * The buffers are dirtied before the folio is dirtied.  There's a small
> + * race window in which writeback may see the folio cleanness but not the
> + * buffer dirtiness.  That's fine.  If this code were to set the folio