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

[Pengfei Li]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:58 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for your comments.

> 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.

I will use two tabs in the next version.

--
Pengfei