Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:34:48 +0800 | From | "long.wanglong" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Optimization function ramoops_init_przs |
| |
On 2015/3/18 1:39, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> wrote: >> The value of cxt->record_size does not change in the loop, >> so this patch optimize the assign statement by moving >> it to outer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/pstore/ram.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c >> index 44a549b..2105a16 100644 >> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c >> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c >> @@ -373,6 +373,7 @@ static int ramoops_init_przs(struct device *dev, struct ramoops_context *cxt, >> { >> int err = -ENOMEM; >> int i; >> + size_t sz; >> >> if (!cxt->record_size) >> return 0; >> @@ -393,9 +394,8 @@ static int ramoops_init_przs(struct device *dev, struct ramoops_context *cxt, >> goto fail_prz; >> } >> >> + sz = cxt->record_size; >> for (i = 0; i < cxt->max_dump_cnt; i++) { >> - size_t sz = cxt->record_size; >> - >> cxt->przs[i] = persistent_ram_new(*paddr, sz, 0, >> &cxt->ecc_info, >> cxt->memtype); >> -- >> 1.8.3.4 >> > > Actually, can't we drop sz entirely and just use cxt->record_size in its place? > > -Kees > I agree with you. drop sz entirely and use cxt->record_size in its place can improve readability.
I will send another patch.
Best Regards
Wang Long
| |