On 22.06.22 05:56, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:47:22AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:44:47AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's worth noting that the check in pgdat_is_empty() is slightly
>>> different. I *think* it doesn't matter in practice, yet I wonder if we
>>> should simply fixup (currently unused) pgdat_is_empty().
>>
>> I guess we could change it to
>>
>> static inline bool pgdat_is_empty(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> {
>> return node_start_pfn(pgdat->node_id) == node_end_pfn(pgdat->node_id)
>> }
>>
>> ? And maybe even rename it to to node_is_empty (not sure why but I tend to like
>
> At least I like this name (node_is_empty) as well.
>
Let's try keeping it consistent. I think node_is_empty() might indicate
that we're punching in a node id instead of a pgdat.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
