Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/page_alloc: use unsigned int for "order" in should_compact_retry()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux