From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC88C4363A for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9306421D42 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="VH9ym3Lo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S372116AbgJ0TZz (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:25:55 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36080 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2502262AbgJ0TX3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:23:29 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1603826608; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PUSGe3J/qpyb5gjYq/iuORJOCh7IUjTdzSGyiD/xoBo=; b=VH9ym3Lod2k93UJK4FuakqAzgbWf2SWKxITD2fnaSinCjAJeoUknu4B3xS0xfrGnnQoiwy 0WMdWBGdcUDOcQMip4oSl+8W5yjbzTnu5gQEj1tCX4EU/wHcLYsKrWKNMHyEhlxLhtsFcX D8PIDVjDrSfWHxORGerSzJtiEufN6jw= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56B4ABB2; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:23:22 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Hui Su Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill.c: remove the unmatched comments Message-ID: <20201027192322.GA20500@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20201027144529.GA3558@rlk> <20201027145814.GY20500@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20201027151156.GA4336@rlk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201027151156.GA4336@rlk> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 27-10-20 23:11:56, Hui Su wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 27-10-20 22:45:29, Hui Su wrote: > > > is_dump_unreclaim_slabs() just check whether nr_unreclaimable > > > slabs amount is greater than user memory, not match witch comment. > > > > As I've tried to explain, the comment is not explaining what the > > function does but how it should be used. It is not a kerneldoc afterall. > > So it is a good match. I can see how that might confuse somebody so I am > > not against changing this but the changelog shouldn't really be > > confusing on its own. What do you think about the following instead. > > > > Hi, Michal: > > Thanks for your fast reply, your changlog is much more accurate. > > And should i resend a patch V3 use the changlog below? Yes, just repost in reply to this email. With the updated changelog Feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko > > Thanks. > > > " > > Comment for is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is not really clear whether it is > > meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated > > information of the past implementation of the function. it doesn't realy > > help that is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is hard to grasp on its own. > > Rename the helper to should_dump_unreclaim_slabs which should make it > > clear what it is meant to do and drop the comment as the purpose should > > be pretty evident now. > > " > > > > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs