[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C0D9278.60907@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:44:40 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/range: Remove unused definition of ARRAY_SIZE()
On 06/07/2010 03:49 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:32:15 +0200 (CEST)
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
>> Remove duplicate definition of ARRAY_SIZE(), which was never used anyway.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/range.c | 4 ----
>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/range.c b/kernel/range.c
>> index 74e2e61..471b66a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/range.c
>> +++ b/kernel/range.c
>> @@ -7,10 +7,6 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/range.h>
>>
>> -#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
>> -#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
>> -#endif
>> -
>> int add_range(struct range *range, int az, int nr_range, u64 start, u64 end)
>> {
>> if (start >= end)
>
> <discovers range.c>
>
> That's not terribly great code, sorry.
>
> - The names are all wrong. Should be range_add(),
> range_add_with_merge(), range_subtract(), etc.
>
> - It's completely undocumented!
>
> - It's linked into every vmlinux in the world, many of which won't use it
> afacit.
>
> - The return value from add_range() is a bit odd. I guess callers must do
>
> if (add_range(..., ..., nr_range, ..., ...) == nr_range)
> error()
>
> - What does the identifier "az" mean?
>
> - `az' and `nr_range' should be unsigned types. That would make the
> "Out of slots:" check non-buggy.
>
> - The return value from add_range_with_merge() is unusable! If it
> did a merge into the final range it will return the caller's
> nr_range. If it failed to merge it will call add_range() and then
> will return the caller's nr_range if it ran out of space.
>
> So the caller cannot determine from the return value whether or not
> the range was added.
>
> Or something. This is an advantage of actually documenting code -
> it makes people think about such things.
>
> - The main structure seems just wrong, or at least inappropriate. Should be
>
> struct range {
> /* Number of ranges presently at *ranges */
> unsigned nr_ranges;
> /* Maximum number of ranges storable at *ranges */
> unsigned max_ranges;
> struct {
> u64 start;
> u64 end;
> } *ranges;
> };
>
> Or similar.
>
> - I can't be bothered working out what subtract_range() and
> clean_sort_range() are supposed to be doing, so I didn't look at
> them.
>
> c'mon guys, we can do better than this.
will work on using lmb to replace range.c later after lmb for x86 is in tip and linux-next.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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