Hi Tejun, >On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \ >> >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES) >> > >> > Also, do we really need this align variant separate when the caller >> > can simply specify 0 for the default? >> >> Unfortunately Yes. >> We need it to keep compatibility with bootmem/nobootmem >> which don't handle 0 as default align value. > >Hmm... why wouldn't just interpreting 0 to SMP_CACHE_BYTES in the >memblock_virt*() function work? >
Problem is not with memblock_virt*(). The issue will happen in case if memblock or nobootmem are disabled in below code (memblock_virt*() is disabled). +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */ +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \ + __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT) which will be transformed to +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */ +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x, align) \ + __alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT) and used as memblock_virt_alloc(size, 0); so, by default bootmem code will use 0 as default alignment and not SMP_CACHE_BYTES and that is wrong. Regards, -grygorii-- 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/
