Hi Christoph,
I use PFN_DOWN() every where as possible and seems it's a habit
problem. So let risc-v maintainer to choose "PFN_DOW()" or
">> PAGE_SHIFT".
Also the same with "end_of_DRAM & max_low_pfn".
Best Regards
Guo Ren
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 08:12:54AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:10:00AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > > set_max_mapnr(PFN_DOWN(mem_size));
> > > > - max_low_pfn = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> > > > + max_low_pfn = PFN_DOWN(memblock_end_of_DRAM());
> > >
> > > I know it is used just above, but can we please just switch this
> > > code to use >> PAGE_SHIFT instead of PFN_DOWN, which just horribly
> > > obsfucates what is going on?
> > ???
> > #define PFN_DOWN(x) ((x) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
> >
> > phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_end_of_DRAM(void)
> > {
> > int idx = memblock.memory.cnt - 1;
> >
> > return (memblock.memory.regions[idx].base + memblock.memory.regions[idx].size);
> > }
> >
> > What's the problem? PFN_DOWN() couldn't be used with function call?
>
> PFN_DOWN gives you the correct result. But I think it actually
> drastically reduces readability over just opencoding it.
>
> > My patch just want to point out that max_low_pfn is PFN not size. In fact
> > there is no error for running without my patch :P
>
> No, I think your patch is correct. I just wonder if we could make
> the code easier to read.
