Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759262Ab1CaT0z (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:26:55 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:45924 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759220Ab1CaT0x (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:26:53 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=ZtuXOl23UuD1yoJUTgnZ6i6Z5VPlPhPMWCeUNtN8OGA= c=1 sm=0 a=XYJHFtupD_QA:10 a=ufTYwEEDWR0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=mzgS5zi-YbU5ZvwXjG8A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:26:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Dave Hansen Cc: Marek Szyprowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Nazarewicz , Kyungmin Park , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Ankita Garg , Daniel Walker , Johan MOSSBERG , Mel Gorman , Pawel Osciak Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: alloc_contig_range() added Message-ID: <20110331192650.GE14441@home.goodmis.org> References: <1301577368-16095-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1301577368-16095-6-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1301587361.31087.1040.camel@nimitz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1301587361.31087.1040.camel@nimitz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1080 Lines: 32 On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:02:41AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > + ret = 0; > > + while (!PageBuddy(pfn_to_page(start & (~0UL << ret)))) > > + if (WARN_ON(++ret >= MAX_ORDER)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > Holy cow, that's dense. Is there really no more straightforward way to > do that? > > In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some > people like to do: > > #define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0) > > to save space on some systems. That should be fixed, as the if (WARN_ON()) has become a standard in most of the kernel. Removing WARN_ON() should be: #define WARN_ON(x) ({0;}) But I agree, that there should be no "side effects" inside a WARN_ON(), which that "++ret" is definitely one. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/