diff mbox series

mm/vmscan: delete rebundant word in comments

Message ID 20221029100431.10825-1-dengshaomin@cdjrlc.com
State New
Headers
Series mm/vmscan: delete rebundant word in comments |

Commit Message

Shaomin Deng Oct. 29, 2022, 10:04 a.m. UTC 
  Delete the repeated word "that" in comments.

Signed-off-by: Shaomin Deng <dengshaomin@cdjrlc.com>
---
 mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Bagas Sanjaya Oct. 29, 2022, 12:51 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 06:04:31AM -0400, Shaomin Deng wrote:
> Delete the repeated word "that" in comments.
> 

Meh...

On what comment?

Also, on patch subject, s/rebundant/redundant/.

> Signed-off-by: Shaomin Deng <dengshaomin@cdjrlc.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 27a3f29c0181..2ad2fec6ed3f 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -7053,7 +7053,7 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int highest_zoneidx)

Ah! You mean balance_pgdat().

>  
>  		/*
>  		 * There should be no need to raise the scanning priority if
> -		 * enough pages are already being scanned that that high
> +		 * enough pages are already being scanned that high
>  		 * watermark would be met at 100% efficiency.
>  		 */
>  		if (kswapd_shrink_node(pgdat, &sc))

Dunno if the comment above is right.

I have already say to fellow @cdjrlc.com people that you and your team
**IGNORE** patch reviews. If you don't reply to this review, I would like
to just say NAK.

Thanks.
Matthew Wilcox Oct. 29, 2022, 2:38 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 06:04:31AM -0400, Shaomin Deng wrote:
> Delete the repeated word "that" in comments.

I think you've misunderstood the comment.  NAK.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 27a3f29c0181..2ad2fec6ed3f 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -7053,7 +7053,7 @@  static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int highest_zoneidx)
 
 		/*
 		 * There should be no need to raise the scanning priority if
-		 * enough pages are already being scanned that that high
+		 * enough pages are already being scanned that high
 		 * watermark would be met at 100% efficiency.
 		 */
 		if (kswapd_shrink_node(pgdat, &sc))