Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 12:20:19 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Cc:     jack@suse.cz, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext2: delete incorrect comment for
 ext2_blks_to_allocate()
Message-ID: <20200703102019.GC4355@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20200702095636.29246-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200702095636.29246-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 02-07-20 17:56:36, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> ext2_blks_to_allocate() only counts direct blocks need to be allocated,
> return value does not include indirect blocks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
> ---
>  fs/ext2/inode.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> index c8b371c82b4f..4df849e694dd 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> @@ -355,9 +355,6 @@ static inline ext2_fsblk_t ext2_find_goal(struct inode *inode, long block,
>   *	@k: number of blocks need for indirect blocks
>   *	@blks: number of data blocks to be mapped.
>   *	@blocks_to_boundary:  the offset in the indirect block
> - *
> - *	return the total number of blocks to be allocate, including the
> - *	direct and indirect blocks.

You're right the comment is wrong but instead of deleting it, I'd rather
fix it like: "Return the number of direct blocks to allocate."

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR