memcg-relax-memcg-iter-caching-checkpatch-fixes

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#135: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1135:
+                         * If the dead_count mismatches, a destruction$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#136: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1136:
+                         * has happened or is happening concurrently.$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#137: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1137:
+                         * If the dead_count matches, a destruction$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#138: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1138:
+                         * might still happen concurrently, but since$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#139: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1139:
+                         * we checked under RCU, that destruction$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#140: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1140:
+                         * won't free the object until we release the$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#141: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1141:
+                         * RCU reader lock.  Thus, the dead_count$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#142: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1142:
+                         * check verifies the pointer is still valid,$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#143: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1143:
+                         * css_tryget() verifies the cgroup pointed to$

ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
#144: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:1144:
+                         * is alive.$

total: 10 errors, 0 warnings, 130 lines checked

NOTE: whitespace errors detected, you may wish to use scripts/cleanpatch or
      scripts/cleanfile

./patches/memcg-relax-memcg-iter-caching.patch has style problems, please review.

If any of these errors are false positives, please report
them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

Please run checkpatch prior to sending patches

Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 14fe2cfc7ada67bcbd26ed74bb01e2bbcfe28bed..408a5c75d77d3dc309b4dbf37589e8574b0e261a 100644 (file)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1132,16 +1132,16 @@ struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
                        }
 
                        /*
-                         * If the dead_count mismatches, a destruction
-                         * has happened or is happening concurrently.
-                         * If the dead_count matches, a destruction
-                         * might still happen concurrently, but since
-                         * we checked under RCU, that destruction
-                         * won't free the object until we release the
-                         * RCU reader lock.  Thus, the dead_count
-                         * check verifies the pointer is still valid,
-                         * css_tryget() verifies the cgroup pointed to
-                         * is alive.
+                        * If the dead_count mismatches, a destruction
+                        * has happened or is happening concurrently.
+                        * If the dead_count matches, a destruction
+                        * might still happen concurrently, but since
+                        * we checked under RCU, that destruction
+                        * won't free the object until we release the
+                        * RCU reader lock.  Thus, the dead_count
+                        * check verifies the pointer is still valid,
+                        * css_tryget() verifies the cgroup pointed to
+                        * is alive.
                         */
                        dead_count = atomic_read(&root->dead_count);
                        smp_rmb();