From 5d241789dfe1c0e5c9b4eb4ae6e48590964b4976 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Miaohe Lin Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:59:34 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") changed the function name but not the corresponding comment. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230727115934.657787-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Muchun Song Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 058fb74..419e001 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, /* * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. * We are special casing this specific case here because - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) -- 2.7.4