Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Optimization function ramoops_init_przs

["long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com>]

On 2015/3/18 1:39, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> wrote:
>> The value of cxt->record_size does not change in the loop,
>> so this patch optimize the assign statement by moving
>> it to outer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/pstore/ram.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
>> index 44a549b..2105a16 100644
>> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
>> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
>> @@ -373,6 +373,7 @@ static int ramoops_init_przs(struct device *dev, struct ramoops_context *cxt,
>>  {
>>         int err = -ENOMEM;
>>         int i;
>> +       size_t sz;
>>
>>         if (!cxt->record_size)
>>                 return 0;
>> @@ -393,9 +394,8 @@ static int ramoops_init_przs(struct device *dev, struct ramoops_context *cxt,
>>                 goto fail_prz;
>>         }
>>
>> +       sz = cxt->record_size;
>>         for (i = 0; i < cxt->max_dump_cnt; i++) {
>> -               size_t sz = cxt->record_size;
>> -
>>                 cxt->przs[i] = persistent_ram_new(*paddr, sz, 0,
>>                                                   &cxt->ecc_info,
>>                                                   cxt->memtype);
>> --
>> 1.8.3.4
>>
> 
> Actually, can't we drop sz entirely and just use cxt->record_size in its place?
> 
> -Kees
> 
I agree with you.
drop sz entirely and  use cxt->record_size in its place can improve readability.

I will send another patch.

Best Regards

Wang Long