Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Harmonize should_compact_retry() type

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:06:54 +0000 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:

> Currently order is signed in one version of the function and unsigned in
> the other. Tidy that up.
> 
> In page_alloc.c, order is unsigned in the vast majority of cases. But,
> there is a cluster of exceptions in compaction-related code (probably
> stemming from the fact that compact_control.order is signed). So, prefer
> local consistency and make this one signed too.
> 

grumble, pet peeve.  Negative orders make no sense.  Can we make
cc->order unsigned in order (heh) to make everything nice?

> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4182,7 +4182,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  }
>  
>  static inline bool
> -should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
> +should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  		     enum compact_result compact_result,
>  		     enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
>  		     int *compaction_retries)
>