On 2019/9/25 21:47, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:30:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> evict() should be called once i_count is zero, rather than i_nlinke
>> is zero.
>>
>> Reported-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxian...@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/inode.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
>> index db4fec30c30d..8262f4a483d3 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
>> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct
>> writeback_control *wbc)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Called at the last iput() if i_nlink is zero
>> + * Called at the last iput() if i_count is zero
>
> Yeah, I'd suggest taking some time to look at other
> inconsistent comments, it makes other folks confused
> and ask me with such-"strong" reason...
Xiang, I'm looking into it, will fix those inconsistent comments in another
patch, please wait a while. ;)
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
>> */
>> void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> {
>> --
>> 2.18.0.rc1
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> .
>
