Hello, Tang. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:19AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote: > Furthermore, we don't need to check "if (this_end < size)" actually. Without > this confusing check, we only waste some loops. So this patch removes the > check. > > Signed-off-by: Tang Chen <tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > mm/memblock.c | 3 --- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index a847bfe..e0c626e 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -114,9 +114,6 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock > memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start, > this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end); > this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end); > > - if (this_end < size) > - continue; > - > cand = round_down(this_end - size, align); > if (cand >= this_start) > return cand;
Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something but are you sure? "this_end - size" can underflow and "cand >= this_start" will be true incorrectly. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
