Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-08-03 Thread Wei Yang
Hmm ping... On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Wei Yang wrote: > Hi, Borislav and all > > Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments? > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-08-03 Thread Wei Yang
Hmm ping... On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Wei Yang wrote: > Hi, Borislav and all > > Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments? > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>>On Fri, Feb 17,

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-05-02 Thread Wei Yang
Hi, Borislav and all Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>> In case (last_start <=

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-05-02 Thread Wei Yang
Hi, Borislav and all Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>> In case (last_start <=

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-19 Thread Wei Yang
Hi, Borislav Do you still have some concern on this change? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-19 Thread Wei Yang
Hi, Borislav Do you still have some concern on this change? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-13 Thread Wei Yang
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is > Hmm, I may write it more specific: "start" is for sure to be set to 0 with

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-13 Thread Wei Yang
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is > Hmm, I may write it more specific: "start" is for sure to be set to 0 with

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-13 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: > In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is Well, lemme see: [0.00] memory_map_top_down: entry, [0x10:0x7ffdf000) [0.00] memory_map_top_down: addr: 0x7fc0, real_end: 0x7fe0 [

Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-03-13 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: > In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is Well, lemme see: [0.00] memory_map_top_down: entry, [0x10:0x7ffdf000) [0.00] memory_map_top_down: addr: 0x7fc0, real_end: 0x7fe0 [

[PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-02-17 Thread Wei Yang
In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is save to do the round_down for all cases and set start to map_start when start is smaller than map_start. >From the performance point of view, this also reduces the check on each iteration. This patch unifies the code on

[PATCH] x86/mm: trivial code cleanup for memory_map_top_doown()

2017-02-17 Thread Wei Yang
In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is save to do the round_down for all cases and set start to map_start when start is smaller than map_start. >From the performance point of view, this also reduces the check on each iteration. This patch unifies the code on