On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:27:31 +0200 Alexey Skidanov <alexey.skida...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/7/18 12:15 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:20:53 +0200 Alexey Skidanov > > <alexey.skida...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> On success, gen_pool_first_fit_align() returns the bit number such that > >> chunk_start_addr + (bit << order) is properly aligned. On failure, > >> the bitmap size parameter is returned. > >> > >> When the chunk_start_addr isn't aligned properly, the > >> chunk_start_addr + (bit << order) isn't aligned too. > >> > >> To fix this, gen_pool_first_fit_align() takes into account > >> the chunk_start_addr alignment and returns the bit value such that > >> chunk_start_addr + (bit << order) is properly aligned > >> (exactly as it done in CMA). > >> > >> ... > >> > >> --- a/include/linux/genalloc.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/genalloc.h > >> > >> ... > >> > >> + struct gen_pool *pool, unsigned long start_add) > >> > >> ... > >> > >> + struct gen_pool *pool, unsigned long start_add) > >> > >> ... > >> > >> + struct gen_pool *pool, unsigned long start_add) > >> > >> ... > >> > > > > We have three typos here. Which makes me wonder why we're passing the > > new argument and then not using it? > > > genpool uses allocation callbacks function that implement some > allocation strategy - bes fit, first fit, ... All of them has the same > type. The added chunk start_addr is used only in one of them - > gen_pool_first_fit_align() OK, but the argument name here is start_add, not start_addr.
