On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:08:44AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> There is only one place to use good_area jump, which could be reduced by
> merging the following two if clause.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index 9d18b73b5f77..72ce6c69e195 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -1390,18 +1390,17 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
> vma = find_vma(mm, address);
> if (unlikely(!vma))
> goto bad_area;
> - if (likely(vma->vm_start <= address))
> - goto good_area;
> - if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)))
> - goto bad_area;
> - if (unlikely(expand_stack(vma, address)))
> + if (likely(vma->vm_start <= address)) {
> + /* good area, do nothing */
> + } else if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)) ||
> + unlikely(expand_stack(vma, address))) {
> goto bad_area;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Ok, we have a good vm_area for this memory access, so
> * we can handle it..
> */
> -good_area:
> if (unlikely(access_error(hw_error_code, vma))) {
> bad_area_access_error(regs, hw_error_code, address, vma);
> return;
I find the old code far easier to read... is there any actual reason to
do this?
