On 01/09/2013 06:23 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:32:56PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:Ok. I think at least you can move that construct: + if (addr < SLICE_LOW_TOP) { + slice = GET_LOW_SLICE_INDEX(addr); + addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_LOW_SHIFT; + if (!(available.low_slices & (1u << slice))) + continue; + } else { + slice = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(addr); + addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT; + if (!(available.high_slices & (1u << slice))) + continue; + } Into some kind of helper. It will probably compile to the same thing but at least it's more readable and it will avoid a fuckup in the future if somebody changes the algorithm and forgets to update one of the copies :-)All right, does the following look more palatable then ? (didn't re-test it, though)
Looks equivalent. I have also not tested :)
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|