Messages in this thread |  | | From | Pengfei Li <> | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:21:00 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/page_alloc: use unsigned int for "order" in should_compact_retry() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:58 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> 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
|  |