October 26, 2022 2:04 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:24:58AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> October 25, 2022 12:15 AM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> @@ -598,22 +597,6 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type, >> return 0; >> } >> >> - /* >> - * The worst case is when new range overlaps all existing regions, >> - * then we'll need type->cnt + 1 empty regions in @type. So if >> - * type->cnt * 2 + 1 is less than type->max, we know >> - * that there is enough empty regions in @type, and we can insert >> - * regions directly. >> - */ >> - if (type->cnt * 2 + 1 < type->max) >> - insert = true; >> - >> -repeat: >> - /* >> - * The following is executed twice. Once with %false @insert and >> - * then with %true. The first counts the number of regions needed >> - * to accommodate the new area. The second actually inserts them. >> - */ >> base = obase; >> nr_new = 0; >> >> I believe nr_new variable is no longer needed, is it? >> >> No, nr_new is needed before memblock_merge_regions() for return. > > Why? > Sorry, nr_new was removed, and added ocnt variable for the original of type->cnt. I already sent another patch with '[PATCH v2] memblock: don't run loop in memblock_add_range() twice' subject, you can see that. > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.
