Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 18 2026, Tarun Sahu wrote: > >> for_each_memblock_type() always starts the iteration at index 0 and its >> body is a trivial 'for' loop, so it hides very little. It also gets in >> the way of iterating from an arbitrary index, which the next patch >> needs. >> >> Remove the macro and open code its three users: memblock_add_range(), >> memblock_isolate_range() and memblock_dump(). While at it, move the >> region pointer into the loop body scope. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tarun Sahu <[email protected]> >> --- >> mm/memblock.c | 14 ++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c >> index 9ce86349a29f..5aae75d34dec 100644 >> --- a/mm/memblock.c >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c >> @@ -155,11 +155,6 @@ struct memblock_type physmem = { >> */ >> static __refdata struct memblock_type *memblock_memory = &memblock.memory; >> >> -#define for_each_memblock_type(i, memblock_type, rgn) >> \ >> - for (i = 0, rgn = &memblock_type->regions[0]; \ >> - i < memblock_type->cnt; \ >> - i++, rgn = &memblock_type->regions[i]) >> - >> #define memblock_dbg(fmt, ...) >> \ >> do { \ >> if (memblock_debug) \ >> @@ -651,7 +646,8 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_add_range(struct >> memblock_type *type, >> base = obase; >> nr_new = 0; >> >> - for_each_memblock_type(idx, type, rgn) { >> + for (idx = 0; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> + rgn = &type->regions[idx]; > > Nit: this is really odd to read. You assign rgn and then declare rbase > and rend. Doesn't checkpatch complain?
I kept it there to minimize the changes in the patch as the variable was already defined there. and unfortunately, checkpatch did not throw any error. Regrardless, Good idea. I updated in v3 here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > Regardless, I reckon it would be a lot nicer to read of you move the > declaration of rgn into the loop. Same for the others below. > > LGTM otherwise, so after fixing this up, feel free to add: > > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]> Done! Thanks for reviewing it. > >> phys_addr_t rbase = rgn->base; >> phys_addr_t rend = rbase + rgn->size; >> >> @@ -827,7 +823,8 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_isolate_range(struct >> memblock_type *type, >> if (memblock_double_array(type, base, size) < 0) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - for_each_memblock_type(idx, type, rgn) { >> + for (idx = 0; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> + rgn = &type->regions[idx]; >> phys_addr_t rbase = rgn->base; >> phys_addr_t rend = rbase + rgn->size; >> >> @@ -2198,7 +2195,8 @@ static void __init_memblock memblock_dump(struct >> memblock_type *type) >> >> pr_info(" %s.cnt = 0x%lx\n", type->name, type->cnt); >> >> - for_each_memblock_type(idx, type, rgn) { >> + for (idx = 0; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> + rgn = &type->regions[idx]; >> char nid_buf[32] = ""; >> >> base = rgn->base; > > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav
