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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190725184253.21160-1-lpf.vector@gmail.com> <20190725184253.21160-2-lpf.vector@gmail.com>
 <20190725185800.GC30641@bombadil.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190725185800.GC30641@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Pengfei Li <lpf.vector@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:21:00 +0800
Message-ID: <CAD7_sbG+nv-PxnMAxsU25BWQz1EMQx3V0CT7W9XTdfY1HvZfFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/page_alloc: use unsigned int for "order" in should_compact_retry()
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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