Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc.c: Use "high-order" in description non 0-order pages

[Baoquan He]

On 09/06/24 at 11:50am, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> In many places, in the comments, we use both "higher-order" and
> "high-order" to describe the non 0-order pages. That is confusing,
> because a "higher-order" statement does not reflect what it is
> compared with.
> 
> Suggested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

This looks good to me, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>

By the way, do you plan to clean up the rest of them in other places?

> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 37b6e987234e..c7bd8740b8a2 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -3590,7 +3590,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
>  			break;
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as
> +		 * High-order allocations must be able to be treated as
>  		 * independent small pages by callers (as they can with
>  		 * small-page vmallocs). Some drivers do their own refcounting
>  		 * on vmalloc_to_page() pages, some use page->mapping,
> @@ -3653,7 +3653,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  	page_order = vm_area_page_order(area);
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and
> +	 * High-order nofail allocations are really expensive and
>  	 * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim
>  	 * and compaction etc.
>  	 *
> -- 
> 2.39.2
>