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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 09821C388F9 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:29:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4186E22265 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="kDCrMmSD" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4186E22265 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 95FB16B0074; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 910A86B0075; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7FFED6B007B; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0162.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.162]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508EA6B0074 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FCC180AD802 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:29:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77418090372.21.paper22_0b15c342727d Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992B0180442C3 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:29:46 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: paper22_0b15c342727d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2881 Received: from m12-15.163.com (m12-15.163.com [220.181.12.15]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:29:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; bh=3oDqx WCgFd8JrOidOt8LxnLGY8nQi1Gnn/BvOHEBY+o=; b=kDCrMmSDYdZ646fXY9nLz nCe9pWrGjLJ/nZ6Q6MMhTn6yiklMIDkI815NVkqgpNl3/QPjdYPxVu3km4J+STnM 7gYHpH7BifJacAGkr4lYaYveHzEQC7FIEkkNQpCMXz1jKCXppetg01YdVByI1swl +OQalbyoan2/VOdA13DlEI= Received: from localhost (unknown [101.86.209.121]) by smtp11 (Coremail) with SMTP id D8CowACnzxO8OJhfdX+LFA--.52256S2; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:11:57 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:11:56 +0800 From: Hui Su To: Michal Hocko , 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: <20201027151156.GA4336@rlk> References: <20201027144529.GA3558@rlk> <20201027145814.GY20500@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201027145814.GY20500@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-CM-TRANSID:D8CowACnzxO8OJhfdX+LFA--.52256S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvdXoWrurW8tF43XFWfur1rKryDWrg_yoWktFbE9a nrtw4DJr4kGF95CF4IkayrZ39rWr4kAa15Z3W0qr12q34YqFZ3Wrn2qFn3Xa4DXFWIy34j 9FyDJay3AwnFqjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU1JPEPUUUUU== X-Originating-IP: [101.86.209.121] X-CM-SenderInfo: xvkbvvri6rljoofrz/1tbiJh3KX1v2eytZOgAAsw X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.317375, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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? 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. > " >