On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:05 PM Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Noted.
I did use the checkpatch.pl and fixed all the warnings before I sent
the patch out.
The checkpatch.pl script did not complain about this. Sure I can stay
away from it.
BTW, I did a search on the kernel tree:
$ rg 'for \(int' | wc -l
970
$
It seems pretty common in the kernel tree now.
>
> 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.
I was wondering why the checkpatch.pl did not catch this, is there any
config for checkpatch.pl I should apply?
I typically invoke:
./scripts/checkpatch.pl -g HEAD
Let me know if there is a better way to invoke checkpatch.pl to give
more warnings.
Chris
