Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 21:55:33 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, shy828301@gmail.com,
        willy@infradead.org, zokeefe@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/16] mm/huge_memory: fix comment of
 page_deferred_list
Message-ID: <YsLxVek1w194qGJt@FVFYT0MHHV2J.googleapis.com>
References: <20220704132201.14611-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <20220704132201.14611-14-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220704132201.14611-14-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 09:21:58PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> The current comment is confusing because if global or memcg deferred list
> in the second tail page is occupied by compound_head, why we still use
> page[2].deferred_list here? I think it wants to say that Global or memcg
> deferred list in the first tail page is occupied by compound_mapcount and
> compound_pincount so we use the second tail page's deferred_list instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>

Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>

Thanks.