net: skbuff: update comment about pfmemalloc propagating

__skb_fill_page_desc_noacc() is not doing any pfmemalloc
propagating, and yet it has a comment about that, commit
84ce071 ("net: introduce __skb_fill_page_desc_noacc")
may have accidentally moved it to __skb_fill_page_desc_noacc(),
so move it back to __skb_fill_page_desc() which is supposed
to be doing pfmemalloc propagating.

Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
CC: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230515050107.46397-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>

include/linux/skbuff.h

@@ -2426,11 +2426,6 @@ static inline void __skb_fill_page_desc_noacc(struct skb_shared_info *shinfo,
 {
 	skb_frag_t *frag = &shinfo->frags[i];
 
-	/*
-	 * Propagate page pfmemalloc to the skb if we can. The problem is
-	 * that not all callers have unique ownership of the page but rely
-	 * on page_is_pfmemalloc doing the right thing(tm).
-	 */
 	skb_frag_fill_page_desc(frag, page, off, size);
 }
 
@@ -2463,6 +2458,11 @@ static inline void __skb_fill_page_desc(struct sk_buff *skb, int i,
 					struct page *page, int off, int size)
 {
 	__skb_fill_page_desc_noacc(skb_shinfo(skb), i, page, off, size);
+
+	/* Propagate page pfmemalloc to the skb if we can. The problem is
+	 * that not all callers have unique ownership of the page but rely
+	 * on page_is_pfmemalloc doing the right thing(tm).
+	 */
 	page = compound_head(page);
 	if (page_is_pfmemalloc(page))
 		skb->pfmemalloc	= true;