[PATCH] mm/vmalloc.c: Use "high-order" in description non 0-order pages

["Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>]

In many places, in the comments, we use both "higher-order" and
"high-order" to describe the non 0-order pages. That is confusing,
because a "higher-order" statement does not reflect what it is
compared with.

Suggested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
---
 mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 37b6e987234e..c7bd8740b8a2 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -3590,7 +3590,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
 			break;
 
 		/*
-		 * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as
+		 * High-order allocations must be able to be treated as
 		 * independent small pages by callers (as they can with
 		 * small-page vmallocs). Some drivers do their own refcounting
 		 * on vmalloc_to_page() pages, some use page->mapping,
@@ -3653,7 +3653,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	page_order = vm_area_page_order(area);
 
 	/*
-	 * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and
+	 * High-order nofail allocations are really expensive and
 	 * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim
 	 * and compaction etc.
 	 *
-- 
2.39.2