On Thu, 15. Aug 22:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:41:42 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Acked-by: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > because we already have a fallback here:
> > > >
> > > > void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof :
> > > >
> > > > fail:
> > > > if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) {
> > > > shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > align = real_align;
> > > > size = real_size;
> > > > goto again;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > This really deserves a comment because this is not really clear at all.
> > > The code is also fragile and it would benefit from some re-org.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the fix.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > I agree. This is only clear for people who know the code. A "fallback"
> > to order-0 should be commented.
>
> It's been a week. Could someone please propose a fixup patch to add
> this comment?
Hi Andrew:
Do you mean that I need to send a v2 patch with the the comments included?
--
Brs,
hailong.
