From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932965Ab3AIV4z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:56:55 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27295 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932934Ab3AIV41 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:56:27 -0500
Message-ID: <50EDE403.4070208@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:41:23 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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>