Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:46:14 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/boot/memory.c: Touched up coding-style issues |
| |
* Jordan Borgner <mail@jordan-borgner.de> wrote:
> Added missing parentheses to sizeof() function in detect_memory_e820(). > > Removed unnecessary braces in detect_memory_e801(). > > Replaced three if-statements with a ternary if-statement and > removed an unnecessary integer variable in detect_memory(). > > This is my first patch I hope it is okay. > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Borgner <mail@jordan-borgner.de> > --- > linux-4.19/arch/x86/boot/memory.c | 24 +++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/linux-4.19/arch/x86/boot/memory.c b/linux-4.19/arch/x86/boot/memory.c > index d9c28c8..a6124af 100644 > --- a/linux-4.19/arch/x86/boot/memory.c > +++ b/linux-4.19/arch/x86/boot/memory.c > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static int detect_memory_e820(void) > > initregs(&ireg); > ireg.ax = 0xe820; > - ireg.cx = sizeof buf; > + ireg.cx = sizeof(buf); > ireg.edx = SMAP; > ireg.di = (size_t)&buf;
That's legit - could you do a single patch that only changes all the 'sizeof x' patterns in arch/x86/ to 'sizeof(x)']?
> > @@ -88,11 +88,11 @@ static int detect_memory_e801(void) > oreg.bx = oreg.dx; > } > > - if (oreg.ax > 15*1024) { > + if (oreg.ax > 15*1024) > return -1; /* Bogus! */ > - } else if (oreg.ax == 15*1024) { > + else if (oreg.ax == 15*1024) > boot_params.alt_mem_k = (oreg.bx << 6) + oreg.ax; > - } else { > + else > /* > * This ignores memory above 16MB if we have a memory > * hole there. If someone actually finds a machine > @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ static int detect_memory_e801(void) > * map. > */ > boot_params.alt_mem_k = oreg.ax; > - }
The original code was better - multi-screen-line statements require curly braces in general.
> > return 0; > } > @@ -121,16 +120,7 @@ static int detect_memory_88(void) > > int detect_memory(void) > { > - int err = -1; > - > - if (detect_memory_e820() > 0) > - err = 0; > - > - if (!detect_memory_e801()) > - err = 0; > - > - if (!detect_memory_88()) > - err = 0; > - > - return err; > + return (detect_memory_e820() > 0 || > + !detect_memory_e801() || > + !detect_memory_88()) ? 0 : -1;
Here too I think the original flow of logic was easier to read - more compact is not always better.
Also, please investigate whether the return value is actually *used*, and if not then please send a separate patch that simplifies the code.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |