Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2014 07:54:57 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] x86/mm: use min instead of min_t |
| |
* Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
> The type of "MAX_DMA_PFN" and "xXx_pfn" are both unsigned long now, so use > min() instead of min_t(). > > Signed-off-by: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> > Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > index 49f8864..dd2f07a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > @@ -1114,8 +1114,8 @@ void __init memblock_find_dma_reserve(void) > * at first, and assume boot_mem will not take below MAX_DMA_PFN > */ > for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) { > - start_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, start_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN); > - end_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, end_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN); > + start_pfn = min(start_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN); > + end_pfn = min(end_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN); > nr_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn;
Yes, harmonizing the types is a much nicer solution, it allows cleanups like this.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |