Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: reformat comments in acls_after_inode_item()

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:52:20AM +0000, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> On Thu Apr 24, 2025 at 1:53 AM JST, David Sterba wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/inode.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > index e3bbe348ac91e2..e18967a14d6419 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > @@ -3721,10 +3721,14 @@ int btrfs_orphan_cleanup(struct btrfs_root *root)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * very simple check to peek ahead in the leaf looking for xattrs.  If we
> > - * don't find any xattrs, we know there can't be any acls.
> > + * Look ahead in the leaf for xattrs. If we don't find any then we know there
> > + * can be any ACLs.
> 
> can't be ?

Fixed, thanks.

> >   *
> > - * slot is the slot the inode is in, objectid is the objectid of the inode
> > + * @leaf:       the eb leaf where to search
> > + * @slot:       the slot the inode is in
> > + * @objectid:   the objectid of the inode
> > + *
> > + * Retrun true if there is a xattr, false otherwise.
> 
> nit: typo: Return
> Also, should it be "an xattr" ?

I don't know, I've changed it to 'xattr/ACL' without a/an, the reason is
to make it clear that the xattr implies potential ACL.