From: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:50:49 +0000 (+0200) Subject: mm/vmalloc.c: use "high-order" in description non 0-order pages X-Git-Url: https://git.kernel.dk/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=6004fe001d6c88ad8c51e1779989e69694cc9ced;p=linux-2.6-block.git mm/vmalloc.c: use "high-order" in description non 0-order pages In many places, in the comments, we use both "higher-order" and "high-order" to describe the non 0-order pages. That is confusing, because a "higher-order" statement does not reflect what it is compared with. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240906095049.3486-1-urezki@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) Suggested-by: Baoquan He Reviewed-by: Baoquan He Cc: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Oleksiy Avramchenko Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index cf2af80157bc..166e12c90ff6 100644 --- a/mm/vmalloc.c +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c @@ -3570,7 +3570,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid, break; /* - * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as + * High-order allocations must be able to be treated as * independent small pages by callers (as they can with * small-page vmallocs). Some drivers do their own refcounting * on vmalloc_to_page() pages, some use page->mapping, @@ -3633,7 +3633,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask, page_order = vm_area_page_order(area); /* - * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and + * High-order nofail allocations are really expensive and * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim * and compaction etc. *