On 01/21/2010 07:21 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> --- linux-mm.orig/kernel/resource.c 2010-01-22 11:20:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-mm/kernel/resource.c 2010-01-22 11:20:35.000000000 +0800
> @@ -327,6 +327,17 @@ int walk_system_ram_range(unsigned long
>
> #endif
>
> +#define PAGE_IS_RAM 24
> +static int __is_ram(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, void *arg)
> +{
> + return PAGE_IS_RAM;
> +}
> +int __attribute__((weak)) page_is_ram(unsigned long pfn)
> +{
> + return PAGE_IS_RAM == walk_system_ram_range(pfn, 1, NULL, __is_ram);
> +}
> +#undef PAGE_IS_RAM
> +
Stylistic nitpick:
The use of the magic number "24" here is pretty ugly; it seems to imply
that there is something peculiar with this number and that it is trying
to avoid an overlap, whereas in fact any number but 0 and -1 would do.
I would rather see just returning 1 and do:
return walk_system_ram_range(pfn, 1, NULL, __is_ram) == 1;
(walk_system_ram_range() returning -1 on error, and 0 means continue.)
Note also that we don't write "constant == expression"; although some
schools teach it as a way to avoid the "=" versus "==" beginner C
mistake, it makes the code less intuitive to read.
Other than that, the patchset looks good; if Ingo doesn't beat me to it
I'll put it in tomorrow (need sleep right now.)
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
