linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,oom_kill: fix the comment of is_dump_unreclaim

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: <20201027143237.GA2910@rlk>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:32:37 +0800
From:   Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom_kill: fix the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs()

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 08:11:18AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 26-09-20 12:15:26, Hui Su wrote:
> > fix the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(), it just check
> > whether nr_unreclaimable slabs amount is greater than user
> > memory.
> 
> The original comment is meant to say when the function should be used.
> Your update makes the comment makes it a kerneldoc for an internal
> function which on its own is not very useful. It is quite clear what
> the function does. The intention is not clear anymore though.
> 
> If you find the comment confusing, however, then I would just propose either
> dropping it altogether or rename it to should_dump_unreclaimable_slab.
> Which is quite mouthful TBH.
>  

Hi, Michal:

Thanks for your explanation.

I also think maybe we should delete the comment, and change the rename it to
should_dump_unreclaimable_slabs().

Andrew,
Is that ok?