Re: [PATCH v2] VFS: d_duplicate: repair comments to avoid kernel-doc warnings

[NeilBrown]

On Thu, 01 Oct 2026, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Use a typical list style for comments to prevent kernel-doc warnings:
> 
> Documentation/filesystems/api-summary:20: ../fs/dcache.c:2029: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. [docutils]
> Documentation/filesystems/api-summary:20: ../fs/dcache.c:2030: WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent. [docutils]
> 
> Also, modify the spelling of "whiteout" to match all other uses in
> the kernel source tree and to be consistent on the same line.
> 
> Fixes: 33d76519f0cc ("VFS: add d_duplicate()")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2: dropped Jan's Reviewed-by since the patch changed.
> 
> Cc: NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  fs/dcache.c |   11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-next-20260930.orig/fs/dcache.c
> +++ linux-next-20260930/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -2025,11 +2025,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(d_alloc);
>   * @dentry: the dentry to duplicate
>   *
>   * Some rename operations need to be combined with another operation
> - * inside the filesystem.
> - * 1/ A cluster filesystem when renaming to an in-use file might need to
> - *   first "silly-rename" that target out of the way before the main rename
> - * 2/ A filesystem that supports white-out might want to create a whiteout
> - *   in place of the file being moved.
> + * inside the filesystem::
> + *
> + *   1. A cluster filesystem when renaming to an in-use file might need to
> + *      first "silly-rename" that target out of the way before the main rename
> + *   2. A filesystem that supports whiteout might want to create a whiteout
> + *      in place of the file being moved.
>   *
>   * For this they need two dentries which temporarily have the same name,
>   * before one is renamed.  d_duplicate() provides for this.  Given a
> 

Is "::" the right thing to do here?  The docs I could find suggests that
it introduces literal text.  Usage in Documentation/ supports this.
Don't we just want a simple numbers list?  Maybe a single ":", but not
2.

Thanks,
NeilBrown