[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Seems the comment of find_next_system_ram() is not exact

Thanks for your reply and for your suggestion to use "git annotate".
I learned a lot from you.

I see the commit by KAMEZAWA. While still not know why he change
code this way to cover the overlap case.

I find the function is introduced in 2842f11419704f8707fffc82e10d2263427fc130.
While the mm/memory_hotplug.c is chaged during this period.
If I want to view the code at that moment, I should use git checkout

2011/9/25, Borislav Petkov <>:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 09:40:52PM +0800, Wizard wrote:
>> Hi, Experts
>> I am a newbie for linux kernel. I just read the code of
>> find_next_system_ram() in kernel/resource.c
>> I think the comment of this function is not exact. This says "Finds
>> the lowest memory reosurce exists within [res->start.res->end)".
>> While I think the code is to find the lowest memory resource overlaps
>> [res->start, res->end).
>> 308: if ((p->end >= start) && (p->start < end))
>> If I am not correct, please let me know. :)
> Right,
> hint for the future, do a "git annotate" on the file containing that
> code - the patch adding the piece of code might (err, and should!) have
> a verbose commit message explaining the situation. And it seems it does
> have something to a degree, here's another hint:
> 58c1b5b079071
> :-)
> But I agree that the comment over the function could use some more
> verbosity on why the function needs to handle overlapping resources and
> sections. Let's ask the author.
>> BTW, I find the "reosurce" is a typo.
> Yes, he could fix it while explaining the overlap :-).
> HTH.
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-25 17:05    [W:0.027 / U:5.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site