Hi Scott, Scott Cheloha <chel...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > -#define for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range(lmb, start, end) \ > - for ((lmb) = (start); (lmb) <= (end); (lmb)++) > - > -#define for_each_drmem_lmb(lmb) \ > - for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range((lmb), \ > - &drmem_info->lmbs[0], \ > - &drmem_info->lmbs[drmem_info->n_lmbs - 1])
A couple things. This will conflict with "powerpc/pseries: Avoid NULL pointer dereference when drmem is unavailable" which is in linuxppc/next-test: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1231904/ Regardless, I don't think trading the iterator macros for open-coded loops improve the code: > - for_each_drmem_lmb(lmb) { > + for (i = 0; i < drmem_info->n_lmbs; i++) { > + lmb = &drmem_info->lmbs[i]; [...] > +struct xarray; > +extern struct xarray *drmem_lmb_xa; drmem_lmb_xa should go in the drmem_info structure if you can't make it static in drmem.c. > > /* > * The of_drconf_cell_v1 struct defines the layout of the LMB data > @@ -71,23 +66,6 @@ static inline u32 drmem_lmb_size(void) > return drmem_info->lmb_size; > } > > -#define DRMEM_LMB_RESERVED 0x80000000 > - > -static inline void drmem_mark_lmb_reserved(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) p> -{ > - lmb->flags |= DRMEM_LMB_RESERVED; > -} > - > -static inline void drmem_remove_lmb_reservation(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) > -{ > - lmb->flags &= ~DRMEM_LMB_RESERVED; > -} > - > -static inline bool drmem_lmb_reserved(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) > -{ > - return lmb->flags & DRMEM_LMB_RESERVED; > -} The flag management is logically separate from the iterator changes, so splitting that out would ease review. Looking further... yes, this needs to be a series of smaller changes please.
