linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/oom_kill: remove comment and rename 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:53:30 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/oom_kill: remove comment and rename
 is_dump_unreclaim_slabs()

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:31:41 +0800 Hui Su <sh_def@....com> wrote:

> 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 meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated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.
> 

I think your recent attempt to improve the comment:

/*
 * Check whether unreclaimable slabs amount is greater than all user
 * memory(LRU pages).
 */

was actually somewhat useful, and worth retaining.

It would be better if it explained *why* we're doing this, rather than
simply "what we are doing"?

<looks at the code>

It's actually quite unobvious why we're doing this!