From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/xe: Set TTM device beneficial_order to 9 (2M) Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 10:00:01 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260430191809.2142544-6-matthew.brost@intel.com> References: <20260430191809.2142544-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> <20260430191809.2142544-6-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 5/6] drm/xe: Set TTM device beneficial_order to 9 (2M)` ```c - xe->drm.vma_offset_manager, 0); + xe->drm.vma_offset_manager, + TTM_ALLOCATION_POOL_BENEFICIAL_ORDER(get_order(SZ_2M))); ``` **This is straightforward and correct.** `get_order(SZ_2M)` returns 9 on 4K-page systems. The `TTM_ALLOCATION_POOL_BENEFICIAL_ORDER` macro packs this into the `alloc_flags` parameter. Has Andi's R-b already. One observation: on architectures with non-4K base page sizes (e.g., 64K pages on arm64), `get_order(SZ_2M)` would return a different value (e.g., order 5 for 64K pages). The commit message says "9 (2M)" but the code uses `get_order(SZ_2M)`, which is the correct portable approach. The commit message should perhaps say "order matching 2M" rather than hardcoding "9". **No functional issues.** --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer