On 09/06/24 at 11:50am, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > 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(-) This looks good to me, thanks. Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> By the way, do you plan to clean up the rest of them in other places? > > 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 >
