Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] net/funeth: Switch to higher-level allocator

["Brendan Jackman" <brendan.jackman@linux.dev>]

On Mon Jun 22, 2026 at 10:11 AM UTC, sashiko-bot wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The commit message logic regarding __alloc_pages_node and alloc_pages_node is inverted.
> --
>
> commit ab883602f87dc726f65726ac01fce73a498907b3
> Author: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
>
> net/funeth: Switch to higher-level allocator
>
> This commit replaces __alloc_pages_node() with alloc_pages_node() in the
> funeth driver.
>
>> The difference between __alloc_pages_node() and alloc_pages_node() is
>> that the former allows you to pass NUMA_NO_NODE.
>> 
>> The former is going away and the latter works fine here so switch over.
>
> [Severity: Medium]
> Is this description inverted? Looking at include/linux/gfp.h, it is
> alloc_pages_node() that safely handles passing NUMA_NO_NODE by checking
> if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE). On the other hand, __alloc_pages_node() contains a
> VM_BUG_ON() which strictly prevents passing NUMA_NO_NODE (-1).
>
> The code change itself appears correct since the node variable can be -1 here,
> but could the commit message be updated to accurately reflect which function
> handles NUMA_NO_NODE?


Repeating myself[0] as this patch has a different CC list from the others:

Sashiko is correct, the commit message says "former" but it should say
"latter".

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DJFI39RWHV1O.MMMMMZSK8E8C@linux.dev/