linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Remove the incorrect and misleading comment

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: <20250115154243.4a31f9fbf805169d2c5594dd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:42:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yuntao Wang <yuntao.wang@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Remove the incorrect and misleading
 comment

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:16:34 +0800 Yuntao Wang <yuntao.wang@...ux.dev> wrote:

> The comment removed in this patch originally belonged to the
> build_zonelists_in_zone_order() function, which was introduced by commit
> f0c0b2b808f2 ("change zonelist order: zonelist order selection logic").
> 
> Later, commit c9bff3eebc09 ("mm, page_alloc: rip out ZONELIST_ORDER_ZONE")
> removed build_zonelists_in_zone_order() but left its comment behind.
> 
> Subsequently, commit 9d3be21bf9c0 ("mm, page_alloc: simplify zonelist
> initialization") moved the node_order variable into build_zonelists(),
> making the comment originally belonged to build_zonelists_in_zone_order()
> appear as if it were part of build_zonelists().
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5161,13 +5161,6 @@ static void build_thisnode_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  	zonerefs->zone_idx = 0;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Build zonelists ordered by zone and nodes within zones.
> - * This results in conserving DMA zone[s] until all Normal memory is
> - * exhausted, but results in overflowing to remote node while memory
> - * may still exist in local DMA zone.
> - */
> -

Yes, it's not obvious which code this comment is telling us about.

I do wonder if the information in this comment could be updated and
moved somewhere more appropriate, rather than simply removing it.  Oh
well, not very important.