Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] Blind text replacement in a comment causes the documented mathematical formula for maximum page allocation size to be halved. --
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] mm: drop stale MAX_ORDER references --- commit dbb29499acbd8adcdd7b1a04573e7581c99841f4 Author: Qi Xi <[email protected]> mm: drop stale MAX_ORDER references This commit renames leftover instances of MAX_ORDER to MAX_PAGE_ORDER across the tree, including comments and gdb helper scripts, to maintain consistency after the treewide rename. > diff --git a/include/net/mana/mana.h b/include/net/mana/mana.h > index 04acb6791dbd9..1d5bed71d6a7e 100644 > --- a/include/net/mana/mana.h > +++ b/include/net/mana/mana.h > @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ enum TRI_STATE { > #define COMP_ENTRY_SIZE 64 > > /* This Max value for RX buffers is derived from __alloc_page()'s max page > - * allocation calculation. It allows maximum 2^(MAX_ORDER -1) pages. RX > buffer > - * size beyond this value gets rejected by __alloc_page() call. > + * allocation calculation. It allows maximum 2^(MAX_PAGE_ORDER -1) pages. RX > + * buffer size beyond this value gets rejected by __alloc_page() call. [Severity: Low] Does this direct text replacement inadvertently halve the documented maximum page allocation size? The old formula used 2^(MAX_ORDER - 1). Because MAX_PAGE_ORDER is an inclusive limit that is one less than the old exclusive MAX_ORDER, evaluating 2^(MAX_PAGE_ORDER - 1) results in half the actual maximum pages. Should this formula be updated to just 2^MAX_PAGE_ORDER instead? > */ > #define MAX_RX_BUFFERS_PER_QUEUE 8192 > #define DEF_RX_BUFFERS_PER_QUEUE 1024 -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
