Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:58:00 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Pengfei Li <lpf.vector@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, cai@lca.pw,
        aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, osalvador@suse.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/page_alloc: use unsigned int for "order" in
 should_compact_retry()
Message-ID: <20190725185800.GC30641@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20190725184253.21160-1-lpf.vector@gmail.com>
 <20190725184253.21160-2-lpf.vector@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190725184253.21160-2-lpf.vector@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.