From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967001AbdAJBIA (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:08:00 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:35560 "EHLO mail-it0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750714AbdAJBH5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:07:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] arm: Cleanup sanity_check_meminfo To: Nicolas Pitre References: <1483657274-11346-1-git-send-email-labbott@redhat.com> <1483657274-11346-2-git-send-email-labbott@redhat.com> Cc: Russell King , Grygorii Strashko , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lilja.magnus@gmail.com, festevam@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Laura Abbott From: Laura Abbott Message-ID: <7d93f84e-c533-4295-7361-bd4455592584@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:07:53 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/05/2017 08:17 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> >> The logic for sanity_check_meminfo has become difficult to >> follow. Clean up the code so it's more obvious what the code >> is actually trying to do. Additionally, meminfo is now removed >> so rename the function to better describe it's purpose. > > s/it's/its/ > >> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott >> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott >> --- >> v2: Fixed code so b9a019899f61 ("ARM: 8590/1: sanity_check_meminfo(): >> avoid overflow on vmalloc_limit") should stay fixed. The casting and assignment >> still seem ugly. > > Are you referring to the initial vmalloc_limit assignment? > I was referring to the min_t with u64 that gets assigned to phys_addr_t. for lowmem_limit >> @@ -1172,43 +1170,19 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) >> for_each_memblock(memory, reg) { >> phys_addr_t block_start = reg->base; >> phys_addr_t block_end = reg->base + reg->size; >> - phys_addr_t size_limit = reg->size; >> >> - if (reg->base >= vmalloc_limit) >> - highmem = 1; >> - else >> - size_limit = vmalloc_limit - reg->base; >> >> - > [...] > > This leaves a spurious empty line. One was already there before your > patch but this would be a good opportunity to remove it. > > Other than that... > > Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre > > > Nicolas > Thanks, Laura