"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c > index b3f45e413a60..08ac27eae408 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c > @@ -37,7 +37,16 @@ > #include <asm/hugetlb.h> > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(slice_convert_lock); > - > +/* > + * One bit per slice. We have lower slices which cover 256MB segments > + * upto 4G range. That gets us 16 low slices. For the rest we track slices > + * in 1TB size. Can we tighten this comment up a bit. What about: > + * One bit per slice. The low slices cover the range 0 - 4GB, each > * slice being 256MB in size, for 16 low slices. The high slices > * cover the rest of the address space at 1TB granularity, with the > * exception of high slice 0 which covers the range 4GB - 1TB. OK? > + * 64 below is actually SLICE_NUM_HIGH to fixup complie errros That line is bogus AFAICS, it refers to the old hardcoded value (prior to 512), I'll drop it. > + */ > +struct slice_mask { > + u64 low_slices; > + DECLARE_BITMAP(high_slices, SLICE_NUM_HIGH); > +}; cheers