Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 09/17] resource: Consolidate resource walking code

[Tom Lendacky]

On 7/28/2017 10:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > The walk_iomem_res_desc(), walk_system_ram_res() and walk_system_ram_range()
> > functions each have much of the same code.  Create a new function that
> > consolidates the common code from these functions in one place to reduce
> > the amount of duplicated code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   kernel/resource.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> > index 9b5f044..7b20b3e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/resource.c
> > +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> > @@ -397,9 +397,30 @@ static int find_next_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
> >   		res->start = p->start;
> >   	if (res->end > p->end)
> >   		res->end = p->end;
> > +	res->desc = p->desc;
> >   	return 0;
>
> I must be going blind: where are we using that res->desc?

I think that was left-over from the initial consolidation work I was
doing.  I'll remove it.

> > +static int __walk_iomem_res_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
> > +				 bool first_level_children_only,
>
> Btw, that variable name is insanely long.

I know, but I'm maintaining consistency with the name that was already
present vs. changing it.

> The rest looks ok to me, thanks for the cleanup!

Thanks,
Tom

>