Hi Yang,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:30 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The description of @flags in nilfs_dirty_inode() kernel-doc
> comment is missing, and some functions had kernel-doc that
> used a hash instead of a colon to separate the parameter
> name from the one line description.
>
> Fix them to remove some warnings found by running scripts/kernel-doc,
> which is caused by using 'make W=1'.
>
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:73: warning: Function parameter or member 'inode' not
> described in 'nilfs_get_block'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:73: warning: Function parameter or member 'blkoff' not
> described in 'nilfs_get_block'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:73: warning: Function parameter or member 'bh_result'
> not described in 'nilfs_get_block'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:73: warning: Function parameter or member 'create' not
> described in 'nilfs_get_block'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:145: warning: Function parameter or member 'file' not
> described in 'nilfs_readpage'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:145: warning: Function parameter or member 'page' not
> described in 'nilfs_readpage'
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c:968: warning: Function parameter or member 'flags' not
> described in 'nilfs_dirty_inode'
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> index 476a4a649f38..eb1ba17acb0b 100644
> --- a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> @@ -59,10 +59,10 @@ void nilfs_inode_sub_blocks(struct inode *inode, int n)
>
> /**
> * nilfs_get_block() - get a file block on the filesystem (callback function)
> - * @inode - inode struct of the target file
> - * @blkoff - file block number
> - * @bh_result - buffer head to be mapped on
> - * @create - indicate whether allocating the block or not when it has not
> + * @inode: inode struct of the target file
> + * @blkoff: file block number
> + * @bh_result: buffer head to be mapped on
> + * @create: indicate whether allocating the block or not when it has not
> * been allocated yet.
> *
> * This function does not issue actual read request of the specified data
> @@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ int nilfs_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t blkoff,
> /**
> * nilfs_readpage() - implement readpage() method of nilfs_aops {}
> * address_space_operations.
> - * @file - file struct of the file to be read
> - * @page - the page to be read
> + * @file: file struct of the file to be read
> + * @page: the page to be read
> */
> static int nilfs_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
> {
> @@ -957,6 +957,8 @@ int __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
> /**
> * nilfs_dirty_inode - reflect changes on given inode to an inode block.
> * @inode: inode of the file to be registered.
> + * @flags: tell the filesystem if we just updated timestamp(I_DIRTY_SYNC)
> + * or anything else
Thanks for the patch.
Could you please modify the description of the 'flags' argument ?
This flag is used in nilfs2 to determine if a data sync is enough or
metadata needs to be updated together. "just updated timestamp" is assigned
to I_DIRTY_TIME in kernel, but the current nilfs2 implementation does not
distinguish this (i.e. lazytime is not supported).
How about "flags to determine the dirty state of the inode" as a generic
description of the argument ?
I think the detailed behavior should be written in the later function spec
part if we explain it.
Other than that, it looks good to me.
Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi
> *
> * nilfs_dirty_inode() loads a inode block containing the specified
> * @inode and copies data from a nilfs_inode to a corresponding inode
> --
> 2.20.1.7.g153144c
>
