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
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
> ---
> mm/memblock.c |3
In memblock_find_in_range_node(), it has the following check at line 117 and
118:
113 for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, _start, _end,
NULL) {
114 this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
115 this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
116
117
In memblock_find_in_range_node(), it has the following check at line 117 and
118:
113 for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, this_start, this_end,
NULL) {
114 this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
115 this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
116
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
---
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
