On 18-11-05 13:20:01, Alexander Duyck wrote:
+static unsigned long __next_pfn_valid_range(unsigned long *i,
+ unsigned long end_pfn)
{
- if (!pfn_valid_within(pfn))
- return false;
- if (!(pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1)) && !pfn_valid(pfn))
- return false;
- return true;
+ unsigned long pfn = *i;
+ unsigned long count;
+
+ while (pfn < end_pfn) {
+ unsigned long t = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
+ unsigned long pageblock_pfn = min(t, end_pfn);
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
+ count = pageblock_pfn - pfn;
+ pfn = pageblock_pfn;
+ if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
+ continue;
+#else
+ for (count = 0; pfn < pageblock_pfn; pfn++) {
+ if (pfn_valid_within(pfn)) {
+ count++;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ if (count)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (!count)
+ continue;
+#endif
+ *i = pfn;
+ return count;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
}
+#define for_each_deferred_pfn_valid_range(i, start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn, count) \
+ for (i = (start_pfn), \
+ count = __next_pfn_valid_range(&i, (end_pfn)); \
+ count && ({ pfn = i - count; 1; }); \
+ count = __next_pfn_valid_range(&i, (end_pfn)))
Can this be improved somehow? It took me a while to understand this
piece of code. i is actually end of block, and not an index by PFN, ({pfn = i - count; 1;}) is
simply hard to parse. Why can't we make __next_pfn_valid_range() to
return both end and a start of a block?
The rest is good:
Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you,
Pasha