From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE5D231A3B for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787143196; cv=none; b=nmthtkMDpYLARoEV+8wIwKLp29xZLAckqVaOHyQM0YH7JPFO5ziZgD9MRyHPcBTfHmhWdE5DGxx3FlnkJssH9Y5DgIbcy+AjwLRGXd69A94EjIpughQuFpnmfOXMUOF/S2m3dqZ6MqOlHxdwcgV1Z9fz5DF/7k2oQBr1/oGs7XQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787143196; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ab+fzl+EmUYRMX8Dq4+8YGse2iIOiyHdeb7Pcp6GLGI=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=UT2vfEH+5kMmixy2tJ2gcgojX/iVSbMZ1yYMqDzg+hhKvUtNGuM8ypLtdy4zWrFB3HZ2luUvR7YvvDnMwfik40+ukgWF/z8vp+BMYPqIH22m6lYF3Sm8RHlftVNp5RMQUFo20ePpw3F4Wwa+2LQiMs1xEKBGKXSIfdyDeYJbyXs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Q9F2bGKG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Q9F2bGKG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2A061F000E9; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:39:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787143194; bh=c98ssoOwKv6nXMTBU4eU+fickvjniB+NjivW3ioL1A8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Q9F2bGKGldvp10hQZcHtnQqIpAxZZg0RFghfgxDfEmjQppWY+x1YasC40zvSN0xK6 PBuD/3pgMKx8ummWftPBnNyEe3E67/QCJndHj2wBipaWnbjzgkFHbX0edrLyOcIxqV ho4kayjDom41OMyqDjvWLSpt6Yj0NUrUgQqmmx7yXC5TJJgdF1G97cMcHWQZonAOKN AbgG3TL1b4amr7AN7YMOPImnCOYqMYEuRLyKgjRNB5kPAFtl8YOFOe4wgisEvLc9Pw xKbgUTsNt0H/wvYEvRqYkzRCDf5P7GKVKkhomdCul/6uIoo7WfnheMkPFeta7mibrH tj/DUbsOS8MpQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: drop stale MAX_ORDER references Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Qi Xi" Cc: linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260818122408.4182417-1-xiqi2@huawei.com> References: <20260818122408.4182417-1-xiqi2@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:39:54 +0000 Message-Id: <20260819123954.C2A061F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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 mathemati= cal formula for maximum page allocation size to be halved. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH] mm: drop stale MAX_ORDER references --- commit dbb29499acbd8adcdd7b1a04573e7581c99841f4 Author: Qi Xi 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 > =20 > /* This Max value for RX buffers is derived from __alloc_page()'s max pa= ge > - * 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, evaluati= ng 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 --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260818122408.4182= 417-1-xiqi2@huawei.com?part=3D1