Re: [patch 06/67] mm: factor out next_present_section_nr()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:04:40 +0000 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:34 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: mm: factor out next_present_section_nr()
> >
> > Let's move it to the header and use the shorter variant from
> > mm/page_alloc.c (the original one will also check
> > "__highest_present_section_nr + 1", which is not necessary).  While at it,
> > make the section_nr in next_pfn() const.
> >
> > In next_pfn(), we now return section_nr_to_pfn(-1) instead of -1 once we
> > exceed __highest_present_section_nr, which doesn't make a difference i= n
> > the caller as it is big enough (>=3D all sane end_pfn).
> 
> Here, look at that "i= n". It looks like it was a MIME line-break (so
> "in" was MIME-encoded and turned into "i=\nn") followed by you or
> David re-flowing the text without MIME-decoding it.

Yes, my MUA is not good about converting all input.  I have tools to fix
up the patches post-facto but changelogs have been a challenge.

I have updated my nightly check-patches-for-crap-and-email-it-to-andrew
script to check for this.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux