Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: alloc_contig_range() added | Date | Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:26:45 +0200 | From | "Michal Nazarewicz" <> |
| |
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> + ret = 0; >> + while (!PageBuddy(pfn_to_page(start & (~0UL << ret)))) >> + if (WARN_ON(++ret >= MAX_ORDER)) >> + return -EINVAL;
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:02:41 +0200, Dave Hansen wrote: > Holy cow, that's dense. Is there really no more straightforward way to > do that?
Which part exactly is dense? What would be qualify as a more straightforward way?
> In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some > people like to do: > > #define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0) > > to save space on some systems.
I don't think that's the case. Even if WARN_ON() decides not to print a warning, it will still return the value of the argument. If not, a lot of code will brake.
-- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@google.com>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
| |