Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 16/07/20 4:22 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>
>> Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> +/**
>>> + * get_node_path - Get the full path of the given node.
>>> + * @dn: Node.
>>> + * @path: Updated with the full path of the node.
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns nothing.
>>> + */
>>> +static void get_node_path(struct device_node *dn, char *path)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!dn)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + get_node_path(dn->parent, path);
>>
>> Is it ok to do recursion in the kernel? In this case I believe it's not
>> problematic since the maximum call depth will be the maximum depth of a
>> device tree node which shouldn't be too much. Also, there are no local
>> variables in this function. But I thought it was worth mentioning.
>
> You are right. We are better off avoiding the recursion here. Will
> change it to an iterative version instead.
Ok.
>>> + * each representing a memory range.
>>> + */
>>> + ranges = (len >> 2) / (n_mem_addr_cells + n_mem_size_cells);
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ranges; i++) {
>>> + base = of_read_number(prop, n_mem_addr_cells);
>>> + prop += n_mem_addr_cells;
>>> + end = base + of_read_number(prop, n_mem_size_cells) - 1;
>
> prop is not used after the above.
>
>> You need to `prop += n_mem_size_cells` here.
>
> But yeah, adding it would make it look complete in some sense..
Isn't it used in the next iteration of the loop?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
