Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill.c: remove the unmatched comments

[Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 27-10-20 22:45:29, Hui Su wrote:
> > is_dump_unreclaim_slabs() just check whether nr_unreclaimable
> > slabs amount is greater than user memory, not match witch comment.
> 
> As I've tried to explain, the comment is not explaining what the
> function does but how it should be used. It is not a kerneldoc afterall.
> So it is a good match. I can see how that might confuse somebody so I am
> not against changing this but the changelog shouldn't really be
> confusing on its own. What do you think about the following instead.
> 

Hi, Michal:

Thanks for your fast reply, your changlog is much more accurate.

And should i resend a patch V3 use the changlog below?

Thanks.

> "
> Comment for is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is not really clear whether it is
> meant to instruct how to use the function or whether it is an outdated
> information of the past implementation of the function. it doesn't realy
> help that is_dump_unreclaim_slabs is hard to grasp on its own.
> Rename the helper to should_dump_unreclaim_slabs which should make it
> clear what it is meant to do and drop the comment as the purpose should
> be pretty evident now.
> "
>