From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mina86@mina86.com (Michal Nazarewicz) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:26:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 05/12] mm: alloc_contig_range() added In-Reply-To: <1301587361.31087.1040.camel@nimitz> References: <1301577368-16095-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1301577368-16095-6-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1301587361.31087.1040.camel@nimitz> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> + ret = 0; >> + while (!PageBuddy(pfn_to_page(start & (~0UL << ret)))) >> + if (WARN_ON(++ret >= MAX_ORDER)) >> + return -EINVAL; On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:02:41 +0200, Dave Hansen wrote: > Holy cow, that's dense. Is there really no more straightforward way to > do that? Which part exactly is dense? What would be qualify as a more straightforward way? > In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some > people like to do: > > #define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0) > > to save space on some systems. I don't think that's the case. Even if WARN_ON() decides not to print a warning, it will still return the value of the argument. If not, a lot of code will brake. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +----------ooO--(_)--Ooo--