On 7/13/23 18:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:18:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing, >>>> so remove them. No functional change intended. >>> >>> No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you? >> >> Thanks for your quick respond. >> >> I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these? > > Don't snip the thing you want explained to you! > > NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */ > - NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */ > + NR_ACTIVE_ANON, > + NR_INACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_ACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_UNEVICTABLE, > > What this is communicating to me is that these five items > (NR_INACTIVE_ANON to NR_UNEVICTABLE) must stay in the same order with > LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE. By removing the ditto-marks from the > subsequent four lines, you've made the comment say that this one line > must stay in the same order as LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE ... which > makes no sense at all. Just wondering - would it be better to repeat these comments in words for each line than use "ditto-marks" ?
