linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix duplicate words and typos

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <573C88E0.8070405@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 08:23:12 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:	Li Peng <lip@...ream.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix duplicate words and typos

On 05/17/16 19:35, Li Peng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Li Peng <lip@...ream.com>
> ---
>  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