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

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 3:22 AM Brendan Jackman
<brendan.jackman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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?

After fixing the changelogs and titles as suggested in [1], feel free
to add my Reviewed-by to all the patches replacing
__alloc_pages_node() with alloc_pages_node()

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260622-alloc-trylock-v2-6-31f31367d420@xxxxxxxxxx/

>
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxx/
>