On 11/8/18 00:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
>
Sure, I'll fix.
