On Friday 28 Oct 2022 at 08:09:28 (+0000), Oliver Upton wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 12:17:40AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > Assuming this is kept as-is... > > > > This check reads really odd to me, but I understand how it applies to > > the use case here. Perhaps create a helper (to be shared with > > __find_buddy_nocheck()) and add a nice comment atop it describing the > > significance of pages that exist outside the boundaries of the buddy > > allocator. > > Sorry, I'm a moron. The check in __find_buddy_nocheck() is of course > necessary and irrelevant to the comment I've made above. But maybe I've > proved my point by tripping over it? :-) A comment won't hurt for sure, I'll add that for the next version. Cheers! Quentin
