Hi Daniel Thanks for the review On 3/21/2018 6:14 PM, Daniel Vacek Wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Jia He <hejianet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:This api is the preparation for further optimizing early_pfn_valid Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/memblock.h | 2 ++ mm/memblock.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h index 9471db4..5f46956 100644 --- a/include/linux/memblock.h +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h @@ -203,6 +203,8 @@ void __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid, unsigned long *out_start_pfn, i >= 0; __next_mem_pfn_range(&i, nid, p_start, p_end, p_nid)) #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */ +int memblock_search_pfn_regions(unsigned long pfn); + unsigned long memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int *last_idx); /** * for_each_free_mem_range - iterate through free memblock areas diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index a9e8da4..f50fe5b 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -1659,6 +1659,18 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_search(struct memblock_type *type, phys_addr return -1; } +/* search memblock with the input pfn, return the region idx */ +int __init_memblock memblock_search_pfn_regions(unsigned long pfn) +{ + struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory; + int mid = memblock_search(type, PFN_PHYS(pfn)); + + if (mid == -1) + return -1;Why this?
Yes, it is redudant and can be removed. Thanks Cheers, Jia
