Re: [PATCH 5/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V16: 005_fallback

[Mel Gorman]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Dave Hansen wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 15:46 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > +static struct page *
> > +fallback_alloc(int alloctype, struct zone *zone, unsigned int order)
> > {
> ...
> > +       /*
> > +        * Here, the alloc type lists has been depleted as well as the global
> > +        * pool, so fallback. When falling back, the largest possible block
> > +        * will be taken to keep the fallbacks clustered if possible
> > +        */
> > +       while ((alloctype = *(++fallback_list)) != -1) {
>
> That's a bit obtuse.  Is there no way to simplify it?  Just keeping an
> index instead of a fallback_list pointer should make it quite a bit
> easier to grok.
>

Changed to

for (i = 0; (alloctype = fallback_list[i]) != -1; i++) {

where i is declared a the start of the function. It's essentially the same
as how we move through the zones fallback list so should seem familiar. Is
that better?

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Java Applications Developer
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/