On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:30 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 02:25:50PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 9:56 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > @@ -6723,7 +6722,7 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_charge(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > > > } > > > > > > > > /** > > > > - * mem_cgroup_charge - charge a newly allocated page to a cgroup > > > > + * __mem_cgroup_charge - charge a newly allocated page to a cgroup > > > > * @page: page to charge > > > > * @mm: mm context of the victim > > > > * @gfp_mask: reclaim mode > > > > > > This patch conflicts with the folio work, so I'm just rebasing the > > > folio patches on top of this, and I think this part of the patch is a > > > mistake. We don't want to document the __mem_cgroup_charge() function. > > > That's an implementation detail. This patch should instead have moved the > > > kernel-doc to memcontrol.h and continued to document mem_cgroup_charge(). > > > > Ack. > > There was a v4 version of this patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1458907 which was picked up by > > Andrew already. If others agree that documentation should be moved > > into the header file then I'll gladly post another version. Or I can > > post a separate patch moving the documentation only. Whatever works > > best. Andrew, Michal, Johannes, WDYT? > > At this point, I've moved the documentation as part of the folio patch. > I'd rather not redo that patch again ... Ok. If you need me to redo anything please let me know.
