[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86e7f97a-ac6b-873d-93b2-1121a464989a@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:50:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, quic_jhugo@...cinc.com,
snitzer@...nel.org, dm <dm-devel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/15/23 12:31, 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.
I think that exclusive MAX_ORDER is more intuitive in the C language -
i.e. if you write "for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; i++)", you are supposed to
loop over all allowed values. If you declare an array "void
*array[MAX_ORDER];" you are supposed to hold a value for each allowed
order.
Pascal has for loops and array dimensions with inclusive ranges - and it
is more prone to off-by-one errors.
Mikulas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists