On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 15:46 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1483,8 +1540,10 @@ void show_free_areas(void)
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> > > for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) {
> > > - nr = zone->free_area[order].nr_free;
> > > - total += nr << order;
> > > + for (type=0; type < RCLM_TYPES; type++) {
> > > + nr = zone->free_area_lists[type][order].nr_free;
> > > + total += nr << order;
> > > + }
> >
> > Can that use the new for_each_ macro?
>
> Now I remember why, it's because of the printf below "for (type=0" . The
> printf has to happen once for each order. With the for_each_macro, it
> would happen for each type *and* order.
Actually, that's for debugging, so we might want to do that anyway. Can
you put it in a separate patch and explain?
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
