On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 18:26 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> + ret = 0;
> >> + while (!PageBuddy(pfn_to_page(start & (~0UL << ret))))
> >> + if (WARN_ON(++ret >= MAX_ORDER))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:02:41 +0200, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Holy cow, that's dense. Is there really no more straightforward way to
> > do that?
>
> Which part exactly is dense? What would be qualify as a more
> straightforward way?
I'm still not 100% sure what it's trying to do. It looks like it
attempts to check all of "start"'s buddy pages.
unsigned long find_buddy(unsigned long pfn, int buddy)
{
unsigned long page_idx = pfn & ((1 << MAX_ORDER) - 1); // You had a macro for this I think
unsigned long buddy_idx = __find_buddy_index(page_idx, order);
return page_idx + buddy_idx;
}
Is something like this equivalent?
int order;
for (order = 0; order <= MAX_ORDER; order++) {
unsigned long buddy_pfn = find_buddy(start, order);
struct page *buddy = pfn_to_page(buddy_pfn);
if (PageBuddy(buddy)
break;
WARN();
return -EINVAL;
}
I'm wondering also if you can share some code with __rmqueue().
> > In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some
> > people like to do:
> >
> > #define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0)
> >
> > to save space on some systems.
>
> I don't think that's the case. Even if WARN_ON() decides not to print
> a warning, it will still return the value of the argument. If not,
> a lot of code will brake.
Bah, sorry. I'm confusing WARN_ON() and WARN().
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>