* [PATCH v2] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection()
@ 2023-07-27 11:59 Miaohe Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Miaohe Lin @ 2023-07-27 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, cgroups, linmiaohe
Commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from
protection checks") changed the function name but not the corresponding
comment.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index e765d1ff9cbb..3bd00f224224 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
/*
* There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim.
* We are special casing this specific case here because
- * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
+ * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep
* the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
* parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
* especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU)
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2023-07-27 11:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-07-27 11:59 [PATCH v2] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Miaohe Lin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox