The commit reworking I_NEW handling accidentally documented the @isnew
parameter in the kernel-doc for inode_insert5(), which does not take the
parameter. Meanwhile, ilookup5_nowait() gained the @isnew parameter but
lacked the corresponding kernel-doc.

Move the description to the correct function to ensure the kernel-doc
accuracy.

Fixes: a27628f43634 ("fs: rework I_NEW handling to operate without fences")
Signed-off-by: Ryota Sakamoto <sakamo.ryota@gmail.com>
---
 fs/inode.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index 521383223d8a455a2d09caff70615032213e3dfc..68056473d65ed4beba5241f4b1bac79b29cd84e9 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1278,7 +1278,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unlock_two_nondirectories);
  * @test:	callback used for comparisons between inodes
  * @set:	callback used to initialize a new struct inode
  * @data:	opaque data pointer to pass to @test and @set
- * @isnew:	pointer to a bool which will indicate whether I_NEW is set
  *
  * Search for the inode specified by @hashval and @data in the inode cache,
  * and if present return it with an increased reference count. This is a
@@ -1593,6 +1592,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(igrab);
  * @hashval:	hash value (usually inode number) to search for
  * @test:	callback used for comparisons between inodes
  * @data:	opaque data pointer to pass to @test
+ * @isnew:	pointer to a bool which will indicate whether I_NEW is set
  *
  * Search for the inode specified by @hashval and @data in the inode cache.
  * If the inode is in the cache, the inode is returned with an incremented

---
base-commit: d26143bb38e2546fe6f8c9860c13a88146ce5dd6
change-id: 20251228-fix-kdoc-ilookup5_nowait-b17dc447bf2c

Best regards,
-- 
Ryota Sakamoto <sakamo.ryota@gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 01:04:07AM +0900, Ryota Sakamoto wrote:
> The commit reworking I_NEW handling accidentally documented the @isnew
> parameter in the kernel-doc for inode_insert5(), which does not take the
> parameter. Meanwhile, ilookup5_nowait() gained the @isnew parameter but
> lacked the corresponding kernel-doc.
> 
> Move the description to the correct function to ensure the kernel-doc
> accuracy.

Much better, thanks!

Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara