On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > On 03/18/2013 11:53 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Lin Feng <linf...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> For x86 PUD_SHIFT is 30 and PMD_SHIFT is 21, so the consequence of >>> (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 is 4. Update the comments to the code. >>> >>> Cc: Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Lin Feng <linf...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> --- >>> arch/x86/mm/init.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c >>> index 59b7fc4..637a95b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c >>> @@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ static unsigned long __init init_range_memory_mapping( >>> return mapped_ram_size; >>> } >>> >>> -/* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 */ >>> +/* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2+1 */ >>> #define STEP_SIZE_SHIFT 5 >>> void __init init_mem_mapping(void) >>> { >> >> 9/2=4.5, so it becomes 5. >> > > No, it doesn't. This is C, not elementary school Now I'm really bothered. > > The comment doesn't say *why* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 or any other > variant is correct, furthermore I suspect that the +1 is misplaced. > However, what is really needed is: > > 1. Someone needs to explain what the logic should be and why, and > 2. replace the macro with a symbolic macro, not with a constant and a > comment explaining, incorrectly, how that value was derived.
yes, we should find out free_mem_size instead to decide next step size. But that will come out page table size estimation problem again. Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/