In many places, in the comments, we use both "higher-order" and "high-order" to describe the non 0-order pages. That is confusing, because a "higher-order" statement does not reflect what it is compared with. Suggested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> --- mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index 37b6e987234e..c7bd8740b8a2 100644 --- a/mm/vmalloc.c +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c @@ -3590,7 +3590,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid, break; /* - * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as + * High-order allocations must be able to be treated as * independent small pages by callers (as they can with * small-page vmallocs). Some drivers do their own refcounting * on vmalloc_to_page() pages, some use page->mapping, @@ -3653,7 +3653,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask, page_order = vm_area_page_order(area); /* - * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and + * High-order nofail allocations are really expensive and * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim * and compaction etc. * -- 2.39.2
