On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:50:08 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@c-s.fr> writes:
> + if ((start + len) > SLICE_LOW_TOP) {
> > + unsigned long start_index = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(start);
> > + unsigned long align_end = ALIGN(end, (1UL << SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT));
> > + unsigned long count = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(align_end) -
> > start_index;
> > + unsigned long i;
> >
> > - slice_bitmap_and(result, mask->high_slices, available->high_slices,
> > - slice_count);
> > + for (i = start_index; i < start_index + count; i++) {
> > + if (!test_bit(i, available->high_slices))
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> why not bitmap_equal here instead of test_bit in loop?
Because we only have the available bitmap now. If we see large ranges
here we could use some bitmap operation like find_next_zero_bit perhaps.
Thanks,
Nick
