Re: [PATCH V2] memcg: cleanup typos in mem cgroup

[Wanpeng Li]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:03:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>Have you used any tool to find those typos? Have you gone through the
>whole memcontrol.c file?
>I am not agains fixes like this but I would much prefer if it was one
>batch of all fixes. I bet there are more typose ;)

OK, I will figure out them and resend the patch.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
>On Fri 22-06-12 20:46:39, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c |   11 +++++------
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 776fc57..503ddd0 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ static const char * const mem_cgroup_events_names[] = {
>>  
>>  /*
>>   * Per memcg event counter is incremented at every pagein/pageout. With THP,
>> - * it will be incremated by the number of pages. This counter is used for
>> - * for trigger some periodic events. This is straightforward and better
>> + * it will be incremented by the number of pages. This counter is used to
>> + * trigger some periodic events. This is straightforward and better
>>   * than using jiffies etc. to handle periodic memcg event.
>>   */
>>  enum mem_cgroup_events_target {
>> @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *mctz)
>>   *
>>   * If there are kernel internal actions which can make use of some not-exact
>>   * value, and reading all cpu value can be performance bottleneck in some
>> - * common workload, threashold and synchonization as vmstat[] should be
>> + * common workload, threshold and synchonization as vmstat[] should be
>>   * implemented.
>>   */
>>  static long mem_cgroup_read_stat(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> @@ -2213,7 +2213,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>  	if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit))
>>  		return CHARGE_RETRY;
>>  
>> -	/* If we don't need to call oom-killer at el, return immediately */
>>  	if (!oom_check)
>>  		return CHARGE_NOMEM;
>>  	/* check OOM */
>> @@ -2291,7 +2290,7 @@ again:
>>  		 * In that case, "memcg" can point to root or p can be NULL with
>>  		 * race with swapoff. Then, we have small risk of mis-accouning.
>>  		 * But such kind of mis-account by race always happens because
>> -		 * we don't have cgroup_mutex(). It's overkill and we allo that
>> +		 * we don't have cgroup_mutex(). It's overkill and we allow that
>>  		 * small race, here.
>>  		 * (*) swapoff at el will charge against mm-struct not against
>>  		 * task-struct. So, mm->owner can be NULL.
>> @@ -2396,7 +2395,7 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> - * Cancel chrages in this cgroup....doesn't propagate to parent cgroup.
>> + * Cancel charges in this cgroup....doesn't propagate to parent cgroup.
>>   * This is useful when moving usage to parent cgroup.
>>   */
>>  static void __mem_cgroup_cancel_local_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> -- 
>> 1.7.9.5
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>
>-- 
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs
>SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
>Lihovarska 1060/12
>190 00 Praha 9    
>Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/