[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:25:09 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memory_hotplug: cleanup memory offline path
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:18:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > index f206b8b66af1..d8a3e9554aec 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > @@ -1451,15 +1451,11 @@ static int
> > offline_isolated_pages_cb(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> > void *data)
> > {
> > - __offline_isolated_pages(start, start + nr_pages);
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > + unsigned long offlined_pages;
> >
> > -static void
> > -offline_isolated_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> > -{
> > - walk_system_ram_range(start_pfn, end_pfn - start_pfn, NULL,
> > - offline_isolated_pages_cb);
> > + offlined_pages = __offline_isolated_pages(start, start + nr_pages);
> > + *(unsigned long *)data += offlined_pages;
>
> unsigned long *offlined_pages = data;
>
> *offlined_pages += __offline_isolated_pages(start, start + nr_pages);
Yeah, more readable.
> Only nits
About the identation, I double checked the code and it looks fine to me.
In [1] looks fine too, might be your mail client?
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10885571/
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Thanks ;-)
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists