From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [220.197.31.5]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EC929B78E; Fri, 15 Aug 2025 03:13:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755227628; cv=none; b=Arvc2gL435MEGfMC0Kz3HWeygtoYAsuciLtKjLZ5imFrdL+Dpv+BwbNhUtJ98EDWEUZW5mrC0NMU1koz4MVeOqXO64DlJlDdJaRnJKA+Q5kzCgELDmY3znjNVkSqxGjVkCW98dlC2nTyizNBxHmaikQu8DNj9OfIZUyr4uHgNus= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755227628; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Qux1qaXvoP1E3yNE3nseNjWIBjZvN1z5Vw6ye0F3+lI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=UL8AUPrNpj+HMfowDgSyqgrgX6iG6K0uHK4hY+bjS8Oj3z5pcbtH/n+NLRzGXskAaEotQi2QrNNzHpDYW98hw+XSwdFEz/p6YjnZGQm6WVKOueWDU4HtvNqoubPhv57gVGC9877kFQxALvtKs9SOfYjDuzHzTFORP+a/w5XIxig= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=gw62hP/C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="gw62hP/C" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From: Content-Type; bh=wCLuGIqd+jl6zft6bxHC9f9AT1pfAEgGKmHtiVEy924=; b=gw62hP/CsEJXHvz1stnPeTSiI9olmemQoCZAKpRrdl1H77dYy23WpioKUl51+q yR4wzLGRh8EH15QgK11bFGdO3FMeMDe8QWaHT2v99Q7SHcPUv09wW1sV9CHSJe6R wgql8HeBkn0+dAWTT3jdGe3td37CRVG9G1OgpJe8Rhmwc= Received: from [192.168.252.68] (unknown []) by gzga-smtp-mtada-g0-3 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wCHBuXTpZ5o43YDCA--.59839S2; Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:13:25 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:13:23 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ext4: fix incorrect function name in comment To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Baolin Liu References: <20250812021709.1120716-1-liubaolin12138@163.com> <20250812172009.GE7938@frogsfrogsfrogs> From: liubaolin In-Reply-To: <20250812172009.GE7938@frogsfrogsfrogs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:_____wCHBuXTpZ5o43YDCA--.59839S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7Zw13KFWfJrWDXF1DJryUAwb_yoW8Gr1Upr WUKF1vkrnFvw129Fn7WF15ZFy2g3yq93y7JFyYgr12vF98Xwn3KF4vgr98tF1YqrZrA395 XF4Ivr93uF13ArDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07U4SoAUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: xolxutxrol0iasrtmqqrwthudrp/1tbiMRGpymid8yJ7pwABs6 > Since commit 6b730a405037 “ext4: hoist ext4_block_write_begin and replace the __block_write_begin”, the comment should be updated accordingly from '__block_write_begin' to 'ext4_block_write_begin'. 在 2025/8/13 1:20, Darrick J. Wong 写道: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:17:09AM +0800, Baolin Liu wrote: >> From: Baolin Liu >> >> The comment mentions block_write_begin(), but the actual function >> called is ext4_block_write_begin(). >> Fix the comment to match the real function name. >> >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Liu > > Heh, that comment was copy-pasted too :/ > > Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" > > --D > >> --- >> fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c >> index ed54c4d0f2f9..b0e3814f8502 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c >> @@ -3155,7 +3155,7 @@ static int ext4_da_write_begin(const struct kiocb *iocb, >> folio_unlock(folio); >> folio_put(folio); >> /* >> - * block_write_begin may have instantiated a few blocks >> + * ext4_block_write_begin may have instantiated a few blocks >> * outside i_size. Trim these off again. Don't need >> * i_size_read because we hold inode lock. >> */ >> -- >> 2.39.2 >> >>