[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1jN/KeU6dgJWQIL@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:04:44 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: remove repeat round
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:24:58AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
> October 25, 2022 12:15 AM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >> @@ -598,22 +597,6 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /*
> >> - * The worst case is when new range overlaps all existing regions,
> >> - * then we'll need type->cnt + 1 empty regions in @type. So if
> >> - * type->cnt * 2 + 1 is less than type->max, we know
> >> - * that there is enough empty regions in @type, and we can insert
> >> - * regions directly.
> >> - */
> >> - if (type->cnt * 2 + 1 < type->max)
> >> - insert = true;
> >> -
> >> -repeat:
> >> - /*
> >> - * The following is executed twice. Once with %false @insert and
> >> - * then with %true. The first counts the number of regions needed
> >> - * to accommodate the new area. The second actually inserts them.
> >> - */
> >> base = obase;
> >> nr_new = 0;
> >
> > I believe nr_new variable is no longer needed, is it?
> >
> No, nr_new is needed before memblock_merge_regions() for return.
Why?
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists