Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:23:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] resource: re-factor page_is_ram() | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 01.06.22 18:32, Vaibhav Jain wrote: > Presently page_is_ram() relies on walk_system_ram_range() that performs a walk > on kernel iomem resources hierarchy with a dummy callback __is_ram(). Before > calling find_next_iomem_res(), walk_system_ram_range() does some book-keeping > which can be avoided for page_is_ram() use-case. > > Hence this patch proposes to update page_is_ram() to directly call > find_next_iomem_res() with minimal book-keeping needed.
I consider the code harder to get compared to just reusing the more-generic and expressive walk_system_ram_range().
It somehow feels like we're duplicating the code here just to optimize out a handful of instructions.
If it doesn't make the code easier to read (at least for me), why do we care?
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |