linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill.c: remove the unmatched comments

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

Message-ID: <20201027192322.GA20500@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:23:22 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill.c: remove the unmatched comments

On Tue 27-10-20 23:11:56, Hui Su wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 27-10-20 22:45:29, Hui Su wrote:
> > > is_dump_unreclaim_slabs() just check whether nr_unreclaimable
> > > slabs amount is greater than user memory, not match witch comment.
> > 
> > As I've tried to explain, the comment is not explaining what the
> > function does but how it should be used. It is not a kerneldoc afterall.
> > So it is a good match. I can see how that might confuse somebody so I am
> > not against changing this but the changelog shouldn't really be
> > confusing on its own. What do you think about the following instead.
> > 
> 
> Hi, Michal:
> 
> Thanks for your fast reply, your changlog is much more accurate.
> 
> And should i resend a patch V3 use the changlog below?

Yes, just repost in reply to this email.

With the updated changelog Feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > "
> > Comment for is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is not really clear whether it is
> > meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated
> > information of the past implementation of the function. it doesn't realy
> > help that is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is hard to grasp on its own.
> > Rename the helper to should_dump_unreclaim_slabs which should make it
> > clear what it is meant to do and drop the comment as the purpose should
> > be pretty evident now.
> > "
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs