On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:44:25 +0800 Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ static unsigned long cluster_alloc_swap_entry(struct swap_info_struct *si, int o
> goto done;
>
> /* Order 0 stealing from higher order */
> - for (int o = 1; o < PMD_ORDER; o++) {
> + for (int o = 1; o < SWAP_NR_ORDERS; o++) {
> /*
> * Clusters here have at least one usable slots and can't fail order 0
> * allocation, but reclaim may drop si->lock and race with another user.
OK, I got that landed in the right place, but...
The definition of `o' within the for statement isn't typical kernel
style - I'm surprised we didn't get a warning for this - maybe things
have changed when I wasn't looking.
Also, this code makes no attempt to honor our "The preferred limit on
the length of a single line is 80 columns" objective. There's just no
reason for comment blocks to violate this.
So Chris, please attend to such things when preparing v6, which I
assume is in the works.
