On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote: > From: "Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennissz...@gmail.com> > > With moving the base_addr in the chunks responsible for serving the > first chunk up, the use of schunk/dchunk in pcpu_setup_first_chunk no > longer makes sense. This makes the linking in the first chunk code not > rely on a ternary and renames the variables to a shared variable, chunk, > because the allocation path is sequential.
Ah cool, please disregard my previous comment on the misnomer. You can explain in the previous patch's description that a follow-up patch will resolve the situation tho. > @@ -1709,13 +1709,13 @@ int __init pcpu_setup_first_chunk(const struct > pcpu_alloc_info *ai, > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcpu_slot[i]); > > /* > + * Initialize first chunk. > + * pcpu_first_chunk will always manage the dynamic region of the > + * first chunk. The static region is dropped as those addresses Would "not covered by any chunk" be clearer than "dropped"? Thanks. -- tejun
