Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:32:37 +0800
From:   Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom_kill: fix the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs()
Message-ID: <20201027143237.GA2910@rlk>
References: <20200926041526.GA179745@rlk>
 <20201027071118.GM20500@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201027071118.GM20500@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 08:11:18AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 26-09-20 12:15:26, Hui Su wrote:
> > fix the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(), it just check
> > whether nr_unreclaimable slabs amount is greater than user
> > memory.
> 
> The original comment is meant to say when the function should be used.
> Your update makes the comment makes it a kerneldoc for an internal
> function which on its own is not very useful. It is quite clear what
> the function does. The intention is not clear anymore though.
> 
> If you find the comment confusing, however, then I would just propose either
> dropping it altogether or rename it to should_dump_unreclaimable_slab.
> Which is quite mouthful TBH.
>  

Hi, Michal:

Thanks for your explanation.

I also think maybe we should delete the comment, and change the rename it to
should_dump_unreclaimable_slabs().

Andrew,
Is that ok?