[PATCH v2 5/5] hugetlbfs: fix inaccurate comment in hugetlbfs_statfs()

Miaohe Lin
2022-07-26T14:29:49Z

In some cases, e.g. when size option is not specified, f_blocks, f_bavail
and f_bfree will be set to -1 instead of 0. Likewise, when nr_inodes isn't
specified, f_files and f_ffree will be set to -1 too. Update the comment
to make this clear.

Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 96c60aa3ab47..fe0e374b02a3 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -1079,7 +1079,7 @@ static int hugetlbfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
buf->f_bsize = huge_page_size(h);
if (sbinfo) {
spin_lock(&sbinfo->stat_lock);
- /* If no limits set, just report 0 for max/free/used
+ /* If no limits set, just report 0 or -1 for max/free/used
* blocks, like simple_statfs() */
if (sbinfo->spool) {
long free_pages;
--
2.23.0