On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 27-10-20 22:45:29, Hui Su wrote: > > is_dump_unreclaim_slabs() just check whether nr_unreclaimable > > slabs amount is greater than user memory, not match witch comment. > > As I've tried to explain, the comment is not explaining what the > function does but how it should be used. It is not a kerneldoc afterall. > So it is a good match. I can see how that might confuse somebody so I am > not against changing this but the changelog shouldn't really be > confusing on its own. What do you think about the following instead. > Hi, Michal: Thanks for your fast reply, your changlog is much more accurate. And should i resend a patch V3 use the changlog below? Thanks. > " > 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 meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated 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. > " >
