linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: remove some useless comments of node_stat

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:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 09:36:15 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove some useless comments of node_stat_item

On 2023/7/13 20:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:18:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing,
>>>> so remove them. No functional change intended.
>>>
>>> No, that's very useful and important.  Why does it confuse you?
>>
>> Thanks for your quick respond.
>>
>> I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these?
> 
> Don't snip the thing you want explained to you!
> 
>         NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */
> -       NR_ACTIVE_ANON,         /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
> -       NR_INACTIVE_FILE,       /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
> -       NR_ACTIVE_FILE,         /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
> -       NR_UNEVICTABLE,         /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
> +	NR_ACTIVE_ANON,
> +       NR_INACTIVE_FILE,
> +       NR_ACTIVE_FILE,
> +	NR_UNEVICTABLE,
> 
> What this is communicating to me is that these five items
> (NR_INACTIVE_ANON to NR_UNEVICTABLE) must stay in the same order with
> LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE.  By removing the ditto-marks from the
> subsequent four lines, you've made the comment say that this one line
> must stay in the same order as LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE ... which
> makes no sense at all.

I see. Many thanks for your kind explanation. :)