On Thu 2023-09-28 18:57:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 9/28/23 09:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
> > > > inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
> > > > 0..MAX_ORDER now.
> > I think that exclusive
On 9/28/23 09:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
0..MAX_ORDER now.
I think that exclusive MAX_ORDER is more intuitive in the C language -
i.e. if you write "for (i = 0; i <
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/15/23 12:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > MAX_ORDER currently defined as number of orders page allocator supports:
> > user can ask buddy allocator for page order between 0 and MAX_ORDER-1.
> >
> > This definition is counter-intuitive and lead
On 3/15/23 12:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
MAX_ORDER currently defined as number of orders page allocator supports:
user can ask buddy allocator for page order between 0 and MAX_ORDER-1.
This definition is counter-intuitive and lead to number of bugs all over
the kernel.
Fix the bugs and then
