Re: [PATCH 11/12] fs/proc/page: clarify comment in get_max_dump_pfn()

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/10/26 16:41, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 03:33:04PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> pfn_to_online_page() will only succeed on some PFNs within the same
>> section, not necessarily all. Let's make that clearer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Nit on comment below, but LGTM so:
> 
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>> ---
>>  fs/proc/page.c | 7 +++----
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/proc/page.c b/fs/proc/page.c
>> index 260772b20bd99..6856ff3e3cf28 100644
>> --- a/fs/proc/page.c
>> +++ b/fs/proc/page.c
>> @@ -31,10 +31,9 @@ static inline unsigned long get_max_dump_pfn(void)
>>  {
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>>  	/*
>> -	 * The memmap of early sections is completely populated and marked
>> -	 * online even if max_pfn does not fall on a section boundary -
>> -	 * pfn_to_online_page() will succeed on all pages. Allow inspecting
>> -	 * these memmaps.
>> +	 * If max_pfn does not fall on a section boundary, pfn_to_online_page()
>> +	 * can succeed on PFNs beyond max_pfn within the same section. Allow
>> +	 * inspecting these memmaps.
> 
> 'Allow inspection of' these memmaps is clearer I think. But this odd turn of
> phrase existed before this change also :)

Done, thanks!

-- 
Cheers,

David