From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753455AbcERPXS (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 11:23:18 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:47954 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753123AbcERPXR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 11:23:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix duplicate words and typos To: Li Peng , akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <1463538956-7342-1-git-send-email-lip@dtdream.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: <573C88E0.8070405@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:23:12 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1463538956-7342-1-git-send-email-lip@dtdream.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/17/16 19:35, Li Peng wrote: > Signed-off-by: Li Peng > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +- > mm/page_alloc.c | 6 +++--- > mm/vmscan.c | 7 +++---- > mm/zswap.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 142cb61..8ff5a79 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -3267,8 +3267,7 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int classzone_idx) > /* > * There should be no need to raise the scanning > * priority if enough pages are already being scanned > - * that that high watermark would be met at 100% > - * efficiency. > + * that high watermark would be met at 100% efficiency. I think that this one wasn't wrong, just confusing. Maybe change it to: * that the high watermark would be met at 100% efficiency. > */ > if (kswapd_shrink_zone(zone, end_zone, &sc)) > raise_priority = false; > diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c > index de0f119b..6d829d7 100644 > --- a/mm/zswap.c > +++ b/mm/zswap.c > @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zpool *pool, unsigned long handle) > * a load may happening concurrently > * it is safe and okay to not free the entry > * if we free the entry in the following put > - * it it either okay to return !0 > + * it either okay to return !0 That's still confusing. Needs some kind of help. > */ > fail: > spin_lock(&tree->lock); > -- ~Randy