linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/base/memory: Simplify add_boot_memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bfad9746-689e-4275-9d68-f8d062526412@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:53:48 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, osalvador@...e.de,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/base/memory: Simplify add_boot_memory_block()

On 14.02.25 07:35, Gavin Shan wrote:
> It's unnecessary to keep the variable @section_count in the function
> because the device for the specific memory block will be added if
> any of its memory section is present. The variable @section_count
> records the number of present memory sections in the specific memory
> block, which isn't needed.
> 
> Simplify the function by dropping the variable @section_count. No
> functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
> ---
>   drivers/base/memory.c | 15 +++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index 348c5dbbfa68..208b9b544012 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -822,18 +822,17 @@ static int add_memory_block(unsigned long block_id, unsigned long state,
>   
>   static int __init add_boot_memory_block(unsigned long base_section_nr)
>   {
> -	int section_count = 0;
>   	unsigned long nr;
>   
>   	for (nr = base_section_nr; nr < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
> -	     nr++)
> -		if (present_section_nr(nr))
> -			section_count++;
> +	     nr++) {
> +		if (present_section_nr(nr)) {
> +			return add_memory_block(memory_block_id(base_section_nr),
> +						MEM_ONLINE, NULL, NULL);
> +		}

Superfluous set of braces for the if statement.

Not sure I count this while thing here as a "simplifcation" -- the code 
is IMHO easier to read without the nested return in the loop body.

No strong opinion, though.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb