On Tue 27-10-20 23:11:56, Hui Su wrote: > 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? Yes, just repost in reply to this email. With the updated changelog Feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > 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 meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated 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. > > " > > > > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
