* redundant BAD_RANGE check?
@ 2000-06-20 6:27 James Manning
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: James Manning @ 2000-06-20 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 117 bytes --]
Given that expand() appears to do its own BAD_RANGE check, it looks
unnecessary to check it again in rmqueue.
James
[-- Attachment #2: bad_range.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 322 bytes --]
--- linux-2.4.0-test1-ac22/mm/page_alloc.c.orig Tue Jun 20 02:24:20 2000
+++ linux-2.4.0-test1-ac22/mm/page_alloc.c Tue Jun 20 02:25:42 2000
@@ -203,8 +203,6 @@
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
set_page_count(page, 1);
- if (BAD_RANGE(zone,page))
- BUG();
return page;
}
curr_order++;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2000-06-20 6:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-06-20 6:27 redundant BAD_RANGE check? James Manning
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox