On 2022/9/9 15:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.
Thanks, the previous info is more appropriate, I will update the patch.
