Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <e7a4f40f-9989-5c1e-bc6a-41606837d49c@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:28:31 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] memblock: don't run loop in memblock_add_range() twice
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231003163045.191184-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev>
 <20231005051959.GC3303@kernel.org>
 <df623d80-befb-09e0-04eb-3c93ecfa9f2e@linux.dev>
 <20231012092442.GR3303@kernel.org>
From:   Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20231012092442.GR3303@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/10/12 17:24, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 11:20:19PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>> On 2023/10/5 13:19, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see this micro-optimization is worth the churn and potential bugs.
>>> NAK.
>> There are many handouts that tell people it needs to run twice in
>> memblock_add_range().
>>
>> I think it's time to change this. I'm trying to tell people that running
>> twice is unnecessary.
> It might be unnecessary, but it's still simpler than the solutions you
> proposed. And, again, removing the second loop is not worth the churn and
> potential bugs.
>   


Okay, I got it. Thanks.