Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:44:44 +0900 | From | Kamezawa Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: mem_cgroup_relize_xxx_limit can guarantee memcg->res.limit <= memcg->memsw.limit |
| |
(2012/07/06 12:21), Wanpeng Li wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Could you merge all 'commentary fixes' into a patch ?
> --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 4b64fe0..a501660 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -3418,7 +3418,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > /* > * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in > * open coded manner. You see what this really does. > - * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit < memcg->memsw.limit. > + * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit <= memcg->memsw.limit. > */ > mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex); > memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT); > @@ -3479,7 +3479,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > /* > * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in > * open coded manner. You see what this really does. > - * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit < memcg->memsw.limit. > + * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit <= memcg->memsw.limit. > */ > mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex); > memlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT); >
| |