On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:11:20AM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 15:18 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:32:35AM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c > > > index 6b2fb87..ab88c5b 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c > > > @@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ static void dma_cache_maint_page(struct page *page, unsigned long offset, > > > op(vaddr, len, dir); > > > } > > > offset = 0; > > > - page++; > > > + page = pfn_to_page(page_to_pfn(page) + 1); > > > > Probably page = nth_page(page, 1) is the better form. > > It's the same thing. > > I'd actually prefer page = pfn_to_page(page_to_pfn(page) + 1); because > it makes the code look like the hack it is. The preferred form for all > iterators like this should be to iterate over the pfn instead of a > pointer into the page arrays, because that will always work correctly no > matter how many weird and wonderful memory schemes we come up with. So, why don't we update the code to do that then? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
