Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1665480
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block |
| Date | 2017-06-14 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tSa89-1FC-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tS9lL-1ah-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tS9F7-1we-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed 14-06-17 14:05:58, Wei Yang wrote: > Hi, Michael > > I copied your reply here: > > >[Sorry for a late response] > > > >On Wed 07-06-17 16:52:12, Wei Yang wrote: > >> The second parameter of init_memory_block() is used to calculate the > >> start_section_nr of this block, which means any section in the same block > >> would get the same start_section_nr. > > > >Could you be more specific what is the problem here? > > > > There is no problem in this code. I just find a unnecessary calculation and > remove it in this patch. This code needs a larger rething rather than here and there small changes I believe. > >> This patch passes the base_section to init_memory_block(), so that to > >> reduce a local variable and a check in every loop. > > > >But then you are not handling a memblock which starts with a !present > >section. The code is quite hairy but I do not see why your change is any > > I don't see the situation you pointed here. > > In add_memory_block(), section_nr is used to record the first section which is > present. And this variable is used to calculate the section which is passed to > init_memory_block(). > > In init_memory_block(), the section got from add_memory_block(), is used to > calculate scn_nr, but finally transformed to "start_section_nr". That means in > init_memory_block(), we just need the "start_section_nr" of a memory_block. We > don't care about who is the first present section. You are right. The code is confusing as hell! That being said, I am not opposing the patch but I would much rather appreciate a consistent cleanup in the whole memblock vs. sections area. That would be a larger project but the end result is really worth it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 07:50 +0200
Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-14 08:00 +0200
Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-14 08:30 +0200
Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:30 +0200
Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:10 +0200
Re: [RESEND PATCH] base/memory: pass the base_section in add_memory_block Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-14 08:40 +0200
csiph-web