Re: [PATCH V2] arm64/hugetlb: Define __hugetlb_valid_size()

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 05:09:12AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/15/22 10:18 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:46:10PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> arch_hugetlb_valid_size() can be just factored out to create another helper
> >> to be used in arch_hugetlb_migration_supported() as well. This just defines
> >> __hugetlb_valid_size() for that purpose.
> >>
> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> This applies on v5.17-rc3
> >>
> >> Changes in V2:
> >>
> >> - s/arm64_hugetlb_valid_size/__hugetlb_valid_size per Catalin
> >> - Restored back warning in arch_hugetlb_migration_supported() per Catalin
> >> - Updated the commit message subject line as required
> >>
> >> Changes in V1:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1644197468-26755-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
> >>
> >>  arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> index ffb9c229610a..72ed07fe2c84 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> @@ -56,24 +56,19 @@ void __init arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void)
> >>  }
> >>  #endif /* CONFIG_CMA */
> >>  
> >> +static bool __hugetlb_valid_size(unsigned long size);
> > 
> > Why not reorder the code to avoid this forward declaration?
> 
> That will create more code churn, which I tried to avoid.

Isn't it just moving a handful of lines further up in the file? What's
the problem with that?

Will