On Thu 08-09-22 15:02:48, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:34:52 +0800 Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/swap_cgroup.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap_cgroup.c
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int swap_cgroup_swapon(int type, unsigned long max_pages)
> > return 0;
> > nomem:
> > pr_info("couldn't allocate enough memory for swap_cgroup\n");
> > - pr_info("swap_cgroup can be disabled by swapaccount=0 boot option\n");
> > + pr_info("swap_cgroup can be disabled by swapaccount=[oO][Ff]/N/n/0 boot option\n");
>
> I'm not sure this really needed changing. "=0" was OK and the message
> now looks rather silly.
Agreed. While swapaccount=0 is clear the extended form, even if correct,
might just confuse some admins.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
