From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: mm: Wire up order in shrink_control Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 10:00:00 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260430191809.2142544-2-matthew.brost@intel.com> References: <20260430191809.2142544-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> <20260430191809.2142544-2-matthew.brost@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Subject:** `[PATCH v4 1/6] mm: Wire up order in shrink_control` This patch adds an `s8 order` field to `struct shrink_control` and threads the allocation order through `shrink_slab()` from `scan_control.order` to shrinkers. **Looks correct.** The field is added cleanly: ```c + /* Allocation order we are currently trying to fulfil. */ + s8 order; ``` The `shrink_slab` signature change is straightforward, threading `order` from `sc->order` at call sites in vmscan.c: ```c - shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id, memcg, sc->priority); + shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id, sc->order, memcg, + sc->priority); ``` The `drop_slab_node()` call correctly passes `0` as order since it's not driven by a specific allocation. One minor nit: the `s8` type is a good match since `scan_control.order` is already `s8`, but it would be worth a brief justification in the commit message for why `s8` over `int` (consistency with scan_control). This is cosmetic. **No functional issues. This patch is fine.** --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer