From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:54:15 +0000 (+1000)
Subject: mm/memcg: replace inexistence move_lock_page_cgroup() by move_lock_mem_cgroup() in... 
X-Git-Tag: next-20120725~1^2~198
X-Git-Url: https://git.karo-electronics.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=78b91bb21855a929e747ad25b0943199fda55f27;p=karo-tx-linux.git

mm/memcg: replace inexistence move_lock_page_cgroup() by move_lock_mem_cgroup() in comment

Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index ac87e79b00d1..4f73c823c59f 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1898,7 +1898,7 @@ again:
 		return;
 	/*
 	 * If this memory cgroup is not under account moving, we don't
-	 * need to take move_lock_page_cgroup(). Because we already hold
+	 * need to take move_lock_mem_cgroup(). Because we already hold
 	 * rcu_read_lock(), any calls to move_account will be delayed until
 	 * rcu_read_unlock() if mem_cgroup_stolen() == true.
 	 */
@@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ void __mem_cgroup_end_update_page_stat(struct page *page, unsigned long *flags)
 	/*
 	 * It's guaranteed that pc->mem_cgroup never changes while
 	 * lock is held because a routine modifies pc->mem_cgroup
-	 * should take move_lock_page_cgroup().
+	 * should take move_lock_mem_cgroup().
 	 */
 	move_unlock_mem_cgroup(pc->mem_cgroup, flags);
 }