Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19847-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 16:32:21 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
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: <ZZwjlYY+LxuWINHm@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240104163652.3705753-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20240104163652.3705753-3-willy@infradead.org>
 <20240108133117.xtkbzeiqq6dtesm5@localhost>
 <ZZv6Dgsmjnr48BMQ@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZZv6Dgsmjnr48BMQ@casper.infradead.org>

On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 01:35:10PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > + * 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.
> 
> Yes, I like that better.

Actually, how about:

 * If the folio has buffers, the uptodate buffers are set dirty, to
 * preserve dirty-state coherency between the folio and the buffers.
 * Buffers added to a dirty folio are created dirty.

I considered deleting the sentence entirely as it's not actually related
to what the function does; it's just a note about how the buffer cache
behaves.  That said, information about how buffer heds work is scant
enough that I don't want to delete it.