Message ID | 20250303094410.437985-1-liuye@kylinos.cn (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Optimize __vmalloc_node_range_noprof function. | expand |
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:44:06PM +0800, Liu Ye wrote: > The use of variables real_size and real_align in function > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof is unreadable. Optimize it in four patches. > > Liu Ye (4): > mm/vmalloc: Remove unnecessary size ALIGN in > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > mm/vmalloc: Size should be used instead of real_size in > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > mm/vmalloc: Remove the real_size variable to simplify the code in > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > mm/vmalloc: Rename the variable real_align to original_align to > prevent misunderstanding > > mm/vmalloc.c | 20 ++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > -- Let me double check it. Quick question, this series does not introduce any functional change? -- Uladzislau Rezki
On 03/03/25 9:39 pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:44:06PM +0800, Liu Ye wrote: >> The use of variables real_size and real_align in function >> __vmalloc_node_range_noprof is unreadable. Optimize it in four patches. >> >> Liu Ye (4): >> mm/vmalloc: Remove unnecessary size ALIGN in >> __vmalloc_node_range_noprof >> mm/vmalloc: Size should be used instead of real_size in >> __vmalloc_node_range_noprof >> mm/vmalloc: Remove the real_size variable to simplify the code in >> __vmalloc_node_range_noprof >> mm/vmalloc: Rename the variable real_align to original_align to >> prevent misunderstanding >> >> mm/vmalloc.c | 20 ++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> -- > Let me double check it. Quick question, this series does not > introduce any functional change? Yeah, the cover letter subject is misleading. IMHO it should be more like "Refactor" instead of "Optimize". > > -- > Uladzislau Rezki >