[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273641849.21352.109.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:24:09 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...uxtronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/25] lmb: Factor the lowest level alloc function
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > @@ -396,33 +406,24 @@ u64 __init __lmb_alloc_base(u64 size, u64 align, u64 max_addr)
> > if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)
> > max_addr = LMB_REAL_LIMIT;
> >
> > + /* Pump up max_addr */
> > + if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)
> > + max_addr = ~(u64)0;
> > +
>
> That if is pretty useless as you set max_addr to LMB_REAL_LIMIT
> right above.
Well, actually no :-) LMB_REAL_LIMIT can actually be == to
LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE which at this stage in the series is still 0, so we
must not miss the second bit.
Subsequent patches remove this anyways as LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE gets turned
into ~0 which makes more sense.
So it's a bit weird looking, but it's correct and transitory code only.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists