Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:38:45 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER
Message-ID: <20230321163845.qpybxa5rlwclvko2@suse.de>
References: <20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:31:23PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> MAX_ORDER currently defined as number of orders page allocator supports:
> user can ask buddy allocator for page order between 0 and MAX_ORDER-1.
> 
> This definition is counter-intuitive and lead to number of bugs all over
> the kernel.
> 
> Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
> inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
> 0..MAX_ORDER now.
> 

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>

Overall looks sane other than the fixups that need to be added as
flagged by LKP. There is a mild risk for stable backports that reference
MAX_ORDER but that's the responsibilty of who is doing the backport.
There is a mild risk of muscle memory adding off-by-one errors for new
code using MAX_ORDER but it's low.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs