linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: correct the comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e192943774324dc6af20095c0e274dbf@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:37 +0000
From:   linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "vdavydov.dev@...il.com" <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: correct the comment of
 mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> On Wed 16-09-20 09:19:27, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> Since commit fb2a6fc56be6 ("mm: memcg: rework and document OOM waiting 
>> and wakeup"), we have renamed mem_cgroup_oom_lock to 
>> mem_cgroup_oom_trylock. So replace mem_cgroup_oom_lock with mem_cgroup_oom_trylock in comment.
>
>While you are right I find the comment more confusing then helpful.
>What does it try to tell us actually? Is it still valid? Shouldn't we rather remove it or make it more clear?
>> 

It seems this comment no long make sense. Many thanks for your nice advise.