From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <riel@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83D22C018B
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:56:23 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <50EDE403.4070208@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:41:23 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: use vm_unmapped_area() on powerpc architecture
References: <1357694895-520-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
 <1357694895-520-8-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
 <1357697739.4838.30.camel@pasglop>
 <CANN689EJV_7Q7J4j1ttDxZuqbwD53PAuCHb5DhiE-AVbmNSR7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1357702376.4838.32.camel@pasglop> <20130109112313.GA4905@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130109112313.GA4905@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
 Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 01/09/2013 06:23 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:32:56PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> Ok. I think at least you can move that construct:
>>
>> +               if (addr < SLICE_LOW_TOP) {
>> +                       slice = GET_LOW_SLICE_INDEX(addr);
>> +                       addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_LOW_SHIFT;
>> +                       if (!(available.low_slices & (1u << slice)))
>> +                               continue;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       slice = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(addr);
>> +                       addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT;
>> +                       if (!(available.high_slices & (1u << slice)))
>> +                               continue;
>> +               }
>>
>> Into some kind of helper. It will probably compile to the same thing but
>> at least it's more readable and it will avoid a fuckup in the future if
>> somebody changes the algorithm and forgets to update one of the
>> copies :-)
>
> All right, does the following look more palatable then ?
> (didn't re-test it, though)

Looks equivalent. I have also not tested :)

> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>