[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130306161619.0b8e3674d91bc3b5f1927813@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:16:19 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com,
liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
vgupta@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: + memblock-add-assertion-for-zero-allocation-alignment.patch
added to -mm tree
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:07:20 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c~memblock-add-assertion-for-zero-allocation-alignment
> > +++ a/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -771,6 +771,9 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc
> > {
> > phys_addr_t found;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON(!align))
> > + align = __alignof__(long long);
> > +
> > /* align @size to avoid excessive fragmentation on reserved array */
> > size = round_up(size, align);
>
> Hi, Peter,
>
> Do you agree that we should check align in round_up()?
As you don't describe your reasoning it is hard to say.
But no, I don't think so. Checking for zero would add a pile of
basically useless code to the 100+ round_up() callsites, and
round_up(x, 0) is kinda meaningful, in a strange way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists