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:   Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:37:27 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in
 mem_cgroup_protection()
Message-ID: <ZL2Ph5g05Ud5vAdT@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
>  	/*
>  	 * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim.
>  	 * We are special casing this specific case here because
> -	 * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
> -	 * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
> -	 * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
> +	 * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough
> +	 * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values
> +	 * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
>  	 * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU)
>  	 * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim
>  	 * but a different value for external reclaim.

This reads a little awkwardly now.  How about:

 	 * We are special casing this specific case here because
-	 * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
+	 * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep
 	 * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
	 * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is