On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:05 PM Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:44:25 +0800 Kairui Song ryncsn@gmail.com 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