On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:52:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 11-03-14 21:28:29, Johannes Weiner wrote: > [...] > > @@ -3919,20 +3919,21 @@ out: > > return ret; > > } > > > > -/* > > - * Charge the memory controller for page usage. > > - * Return > > - * 0 if the charge was successful > > - * < 0 if the cgroup is over its limit > > - */ > > -static int mem_cgroup_charge_common(struct page *page, struct mm_struct > > *mm, > > - gfp_t gfp_mask, enum charge_type ctype) > > +int mem_cgroup_newpage_charge(struct page *page, > > + struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > s/mem_cgroup_newpage_charge/mem_cgroup_anon_charge/ ? > > Would be a better name? The patch would be bigger but the name more > apparent...
I wouldn't be opposed to fixing those names at all, but I think that is out of the scope of this patch. Want to send one? mem_cgroup_charge_anon() would be a good name, but then we should also rename mem_cgroup_cache_charge() to mem_cgroup_charge_file() to match. Or charge_private() vs. charge_shared()... > Other than that I am good with this. Without (preferably) or without > rename: > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
