Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/page_alloc: use unsigned int for "order" in should_compact_retry()

From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Thu Jul 25 2019 - 14:58:44 EST


On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:42:44AM +0800, Pengfei Li wrote:
> static inline bool
> -should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
> - enum compact_result compact_result,
> - enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> - int *compaction_retries)
> +should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order,
> + int alloc_flags, enum compact_result compact_result,
> + enum compact_priority *compact_priority, int *compaction_retries)
> {
> int max_retries = MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES;

One tab here is insufficient indentation. It should be at least two.
Some parts of the kernel insist on lining up arguments with the opening
parenthesis of the function; I don't know if mm really obeys this rule,
but you're indenting function arguments to the same level as the opening
variables of the function, which is confusing.