On 01/09/2013 06:23 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:32:56PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Ok. I think at least you can move that construct:
+ if (addr < SLICE_LOW_TOP) {
+ slice = GET_LOW_SLICE_INDEX(addr);
+ addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_LOW_SHIFT;
+ if (!(available.low_slices & (1u << slice)))
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ slice = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(addr);
+ addr = (slice + 1) << SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT;
+ if (!(available.high_slices & (1u << slice)))
+ continue;
+ }
Into some kind of helper. It will probably compile to the same thing but
at least it's more readable and it will avoid a fuckup in the future if
somebody changes the algorithm and forgets to update one of the
copies :-)
All right, does the following look more palatable then ?
(didn't re-test it, though)
Looks equivalent. I have also not tested :)
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <wal...@google.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
