On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:54:45 +0900
FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- a/lib/iommu-helper.c~a
> > > +++ a/lib/iommu-helper.c
> > > @@ -8,15 +8,20 @@
> > > static unsigned long find_next_zero_area(unsigned long *map,
> > > unsigned long size,
> > > unsigned long start,
> > > - unsigned int nr)
> > > + unsigned int nr,
> > > + unsigned long align_mask)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long index, end, i;
> > > again:
> > > index = find_next_zero_bit(map, size, start);
> > > +
> > > + /* Align allocation */
> > > + index = (index + align_mask) & ~align_mask;
> >
> > The ALIGN() macro is the approved way of doing this.
> >
> > (I don't think ALIGN adds much value really, especially given that you've
> > commented what's going on, but I guess it does make reviewing and reading a
> > little easier).
>
> Would be better to use __ALIGN_MASK? I can find only one user who
> directly use __ALIGN_MASK. The POWER IOMMU calculates align_mask by
> itself so it's easier to pass align_mask as an argument.
ALIGN() should be OK - its aditional type coercion isn't useful in this
case but ALIGN() is the official interface.
I don't see any reason why vermilion.c had to reach for __ALIGN_MASK. I'll
switch it to ALIGN().
--
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/
