On 08/15/2013 11:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
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.
Oh, you are right... Please ignore this. I didn't read it carefully.
Thanks.
--
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/
