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

[Mike Kravetz]

On 07/26/22 22:29, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Thanks,

Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Mike Kravetz

> 
> 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
>