We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
memory block ids next.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
Cc: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Cc: Arun KS <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Tatashin <[email protected]>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>
Cc: Baoquan He <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
---
drivers/base/memory.c | 9 +++++----
include/linux/mmzone.h | 4 ++--
mm/sparse.c | 12 ++++++------
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index 826dd76f662e..5b3a2fd250ba 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(mem_sysfs_mutex);
static int sections_per_block;
-static inline int base_memory_block_id(int section_nr)
+static inline int base_memory_block_id(unsigned long section_nr)
{
return section_nr / sections_per_block;
}
@@ -691,10 +691,11 @@ static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block **memory, int block_id,
return ret;
}
-static int add_memory_block(int base_section_nr)
+static int add_memory_block(unsigned long base_section_nr)
{
+ int ret, section_count = 0;
struct memory_block *mem;
- int i, ret, section_count = 0;
+ unsigned long i;
for (i = base_section_nr;
i < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
@@ -822,7 +823,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group *memory_root_attr_groups[] = {
*/
int __init memory_dev_init(void)
{
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned long i;
int ret;
int err;
unsigned long block_sz;
diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index 427b79c39b3c..83b6aae16f13 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ static inline struct mem_section *__nr_to_section(unsigned long nr)
return NULL;
return &mem_section[SECTION_NR_TO_ROOT(nr)][nr & SECTION_ROOT_MASK];
}
-extern int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms);
+extern unsigned long __section_nr(struct mem_section *ms);
extern unsigned long usemap_size(void);
/*
@@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@ static inline struct mem_section *__pfn_to_section(unsigned long pfn)
return __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
}
-extern int __highest_present_section_nr;
+extern unsigned long __highest_present_section_nr;
#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
index 1552c855d62a..e8c57e039be8 100644
--- a/mm/sparse.c
+++ b/mm/sparse.c
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static inline int sparse_index_init(unsigned long section_nr, int nid)
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME
-int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
+unsigned long __section_nr(struct mem_section *ms)
{
unsigned long root_nr;
struct mem_section *root = NULL;
@@ -121,9 +121,9 @@ int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
return (root_nr * SECTIONS_PER_ROOT) + (ms - root);
}
#else
-int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
+unsigned long __section_nr(struct mem_section *ms)
{
- return (int)(ms - mem_section[0]);
+ return (unsigned long)(ms - mem_section[0]);
}
#endif
@@ -178,10 +178,10 @@ void __meminit mminit_validate_memmodel_limits(unsigned long *start_pfn,
* Keeping track of this gives us an easy way to break out of
* those loops early.
*/
-int __highest_present_section_nr;
+unsigned long __highest_present_section_nr;
static void section_mark_present(struct mem_section *ms)
{
- int section_nr = __section_nr(ms);
+ unsigned long section_nr = __section_nr(ms);
if (section_nr > __highest_present_section_nr)
__highest_present_section_nr = section_nr;
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void section_mark_present(struct mem_section *ms)
ms->section_mem_map |= SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT;
}
-static inline int next_present_section_nr(int section_nr)
+static inline unsigned long next_present_section_nr(unsigned long section_nr)
{
do {
section_nr++;
--
2.21.0
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
> memory block ids next.
>
> ...
>
> - int i, ret, section_count = 0;
> + unsigned long i;
>
> ...
>
> - unsigned int i;
> + unsigned long i;
Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
This?
s/unsigned long i/unsigned long section_nr/
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c~mm-section-numbers-use-the-type-unsigned-long-fix
+++ a/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -131,17 +131,17 @@ static ssize_t phys_index_show(struct de
static ssize_t removable_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
char *buf)
{
- unsigned long i, pfn;
+ unsigned long section_nr, pfn;
int ret = 1;
struct memory_block *mem = to_memory_block(dev);
if (mem->state != MEM_ONLINE)
goto out;
- for (i = 0; i < sections_per_block; i++) {
- if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + i))
+ for (section_nr = 0; section_nr < sections_per_block; section_nr++) {
+ if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr))
continue;
- pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + i);
+ pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
ret &= is_mem_section_removable(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
}
@@ -695,12 +695,12 @@ static int add_memory_block(unsigned lon
{
int ret, section_count = 0;
struct memory_block *mem;
- unsigned long i;
+ unsigned long section_nr;
- for (i = base_section_nr;
- i < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
- i++)
- if (present_section_nr(i))
+ for (section_nr = base_section_nr;
+ section_nr < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
+ section_nr++)
+ if (present_section_nr(section_nr))
section_count++;
if (section_count == 0)
@@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group *mem
*/
int __init memory_dev_init(void)
{
- unsigned long i;
+ unsigned long section_nr;
int ret;
int err;
unsigned long block_sz;
@@ -840,9 +840,9 @@ int __init memory_dev_init(void)
* during boot and have been initialized
*/
mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
- for (i = 0; i <= __highest_present_section_nr;
- i += sections_per_block) {
- err = add_memory_block(i);
+ for (section_nr = 0; section_nr <= __highest_present_section_nr;
+ section_nr += sections_per_block) {
+ err = add_memory_block(section_nr);
if (!ret)
ret = err;
}
_
On 14.06.19 21:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
>> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
>> memory block ids next.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> - int i, ret, section_count = 0;
>> + unsigned long i;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> - unsigned int i;
>> + unsigned long i;
>
> Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
> expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
>
> This?
t460s: ~/git/linux memory_block_devices2 $ git grep "unsigned long i;" |
wc -l
245
t460s: ~/git/linux memory_block_devices2 $ git grep "int i;" | wc -l
26827
Yes ;)
While it makes sense for the second and third occurrence, I think for
the first one it could be confusing (it's not actually a section number
but a counter for sections_per_block).
I see just now that we can avoid converting the first occurrence
completely. So maybe we should drop changing removable_show() from this
patch.
Cheers!
>
>
>
> s/unsigned long i/unsigned long section_nr/
>
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c~mm-section-numbers-use-the-type-unsigned-long-fix
> +++ a/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -131,17 +131,17 @@ static ssize_t phys_index_show(struct de
> static ssize_t removable_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - unsigned long i, pfn;
> + unsigned long section_nr, pfn;
> int ret = 1;
> struct memory_block *mem = to_memory_block(dev);
>
> if (mem->state != MEM_ONLINE)
> goto out;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < sections_per_block; i++) {
> - if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + i))
> + for (section_nr = 0; section_nr < sections_per_block; section_nr++) {
> + if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr))
> continue;
> - pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + i);
> + pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
> ret &= is_mem_section_removable(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> }
>
> @@ -695,12 +695,12 @@ static int add_memory_block(unsigned lon
> {
> int ret, section_count = 0;
> struct memory_block *mem;
> - unsigned long i;
> + unsigned long section_nr;
>
> - for (i = base_section_nr;
> - i < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
> - i++)
> - if (present_section_nr(i))
> + for (section_nr = base_section_nr;
> + section_nr < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
> + section_nr++)
> + if (present_section_nr(section_nr))
> section_count++;
>
> if (section_count == 0)
> @@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group *mem
> */
> int __init memory_dev_init(void)
> {
> - unsigned long i;
> + unsigned long section_nr;
> int ret;
> int err;
> unsigned long block_sz;
> @@ -840,9 +840,9 @@ int __init memory_dev_init(void)
> * during boot and have been initialized
> */
> mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
> - for (i = 0; i <= __highest_present_section_nr;
> - i += sections_per_block) {
> - err = add_memory_block(i);
> + for (section_nr = 0; section_nr <= __highest_present_section_nr;
> + section_nr += sections_per_block) {
> + err = add_memory_block(section_nr);
> if (!ret)
> ret = err;
> }
> _
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit :
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
>> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
>> memory block ids next.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> - int i, ret, section_count = 0;
>> + unsigned long i;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> - unsigned int i;
>> + unsigned long i;
>
> Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
> expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
>
> This?
>
>
>
> s/unsigned long i/unsigned long section_nr/
From my point of view you degrade readability by doing that.
section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
Three times the word 'section_nr' in one line, is that worth it ? Gives
me headache.
Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
being mis-understood.
What about just naming it 'nr' if we want to use something else than 'i' ?
Christophe
>
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c~mm-section-numbers-use-the-type-unsigned-long-fix
> +++ a/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -131,17 +131,17 @@ static ssize_t phys_index_show(struct de
> static ssize_t removable_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - unsigned long i, pfn;
> + unsigned long section_nr, pfn;
> int ret = 1;
> struct memory_block *mem = to_memory_block(dev);
>
> if (mem->state != MEM_ONLINE)
> goto out;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < sections_per_block; i++) {
> - if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + i))
> + for (section_nr = 0; section_nr < sections_per_block; section_nr++) {
> + if (!present_section_nr(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr))
> continue;
> - pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + i);
> + pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
> ret &= is_mem_section_removable(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> }
>
> @@ -695,12 +695,12 @@ static int add_memory_block(unsigned lon
> {
> int ret, section_count = 0;
> struct memory_block *mem;
> - unsigned long i;
> + unsigned long section_nr;
>
> - for (i = base_section_nr;
> - i < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
> - i++)
> - if (present_section_nr(i))
> + for (section_nr = base_section_nr;
> + section_nr < base_section_nr + sections_per_block;
> + section_nr++)
> + if (present_section_nr(section_nr))
> section_count++;
>
> if (section_count == 0)
> @@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group *mem
> */
> int __init memory_dev_init(void)
> {
> - unsigned long i;
> + unsigned long section_nr;
> int ret;
> int err;
> unsigned long block_sz;
> @@ -840,9 +840,9 @@ int __init memory_dev_init(void)
> * during boot and have been initialized
> */
> mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
> - for (i = 0; i <= __highest_present_section_nr;
> - i += sections_per_block) {
> - err = add_memory_block(i);
> + for (section_nr = 0; section_nr <= __highest_present_section_nr;
> + section_nr += sections_per_block) {
> + err = add_memory_block(section_nr);
> if (!ret)
> ret = err;
> }
> _
>
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 14/06/2019 ? 21:00, Andrew Morton a ?crit?:
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
> >> memory block ids next.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> - int i, ret, section_count = 0;
> >> + unsigned long i;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> - unsigned int i;
> >> + unsigned long i;
> >
> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
> >
> > This?
> >
> >
> >
> > s/unsigned long i/unsigned long section_nr/
>
> From my point of view you degrade readability by doing that.
>
> section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr + section_nr);
>
> Three times the word 'section_nr' in one line, is that worth it ? Gives
> me headache.
>
> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
>
> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
> being mis-understood.
Well. It did say "integer". Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
misleading.
> What about just naming it 'nr' if we want to use something else than 'i' ?
Sure, that works.
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit :
>> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
>> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
>> >> memory block ids next.
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> - int i, ret, section_count = 0;
>> >> + unsigned long i;
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> - unsigned int i;
>> >> + unsigned long i;
>> >
>> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
>> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
...
>> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
>>
>> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
>> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
>> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
>> being mis-understood.
>
> Well. It did say "integer". Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
> misleading.
I always thought `i` was for loop `index` not `integer`.
But I've never written any Fortran :)
cheers