Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: vmscan: refactor reclaim_state helpers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 10:31:53AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-05 at 18:54 +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > +	 * For all of these cases, we have no way of finding out whether these
> > +	 * pages were related to the memcg under reclaim. For example, a freed
> > +	 * slab page could have had only a single object charged to the memcg
> 
> Minor nits:
> s/could have had/could have

No ... "could have had" is correct.  I'm a native English speaker, so I
have no idea what the rule here is, but I can ask my linguist wife later
if you want to know ;-)

Maybe it's something like this:
https://www.englishgrammar.org/have-had-and-had-had/





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux