@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ unsigned long __head __startup_64(unsigned long physaddr,
/* Fixup the physical addresses in the page table */
- pgd = fixup_pointer(&early_top_pgt, physaddr);
+ pgd = fixup_pointer(early_top_pgt, physaddr);
p = pgd + pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map);
if (la57)
*p = (unsigned long)level4_kernel_pgt;
@@ -220,11 +220,11 @@ unsigned long __head __startup_64(unsigned long physaddr,
*p += _PAGE_TABLE_NOENC - __START_KERNEL_map + load_delta;
if (la57) {
- p4d = fixup_pointer(&level4_kernel_pgt, physaddr);
+ p4d = fixup_pointer(level4_kernel_pgt, physaddr);
p4d[511] += load_delta;
}
- pud = fixup_pointer(&level3_kernel_pgt, physaddr);
+ pud = fixup_pointer(level3_kernel_pgt, physaddr);
pud[510] += load_delta;
pud[511] += load_delta;
The usage of '&' before the array parameter is redundant because '&array' is equivalent to 'array'. Therefore, there is no need to include '&' before the array parameter. In fact, using '&' can cause more confusion, especially for individuals who are not familiar with the address-of operation for arrays. They might mistakenly believe that one is different from the other and spend additional time realizing that they are actually the same. Harmonizing the style by removing the unnecessary '&' would save time for those individuals. Signed-off-by: Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@xfusion.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/head64.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)