RE: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER

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

 



From: Mel Gorman
> Sent: 21 March 2023 16:39
> 
> 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@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 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.

How many of the places that use MAX_ORDER weren't touched?
Is it actually worth changing the name at the same time.
That will stop stable backport issues.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)






[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