[PATCH 2/3] x86:aperture_64: code pattern clean

[PATCH 2/3] x86:aperture_64: code pattern clean

[Wang YanQing]

This patch don't change code function,
it just do prepare for import the
memblock_alloc_in_range to do the code pattern
which looks like below in one function:

memblock_find_in_range()
follow by
memblock_reserve()

Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
index d5fd66f..1523e75 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
@@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ static u32 __init allocate_aperture(void)
 	 * memory. Unfortunately we cannot move it up because that would
 	 * make the IOMMU useless.
 	 */
-	addr = memblock_find_in_range(GART_MIN_ADDR, GART_MAX_ADDR,
+	addr = memblock_find_in_range(GART_MIN_ADDR, GART_MAX_ADDR - aper_size,
 				      aper_size, aper_size);
-	if (!addr || addr + aper_size > GART_MAX_ADDR) {
+	if (!addr) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR
 			"Cannot allocate aperture memory hole (%lx,%uK)\n",
 				addr, aper_size>>10);
-- 
1.7.12.4.dirty

Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86:aperture_64: code pattern clean

[Yinghai Lu]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This patch don't change code function,
> it just do prepare for import the
> memblock_alloc_in_range to do the code pattern
> which looks like below in one function:
>
> memblock_find_in_range()
> follow by
> memblock_reserve()
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
> index d5fd66f..1523e75 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c
> @@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ static u32 __init allocate_aperture(void)
>          * memory. Unfortunately we cannot move it up because that would
>          * make the IOMMU useless.
>          */
> -       addr = memblock_find_in_range(GART_MIN_ADDR, GART_MAX_ADDR,
> +       addr = memblock_find_in_range(GART_MIN_ADDR, GART_MAX_ADDR - aper_size,

this change is wrong.

>                                       aper_size, aper_size);
> -       if (!addr || addr + aper_size > GART_MAX_ADDR) {
> +       if (!addr) {

could just drop not needed checking of
    addr + aper_size > GART_MAX_ADDR


Thanks

Yinghai