On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 01:05 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-09 at 11:51 -0500, Wood Scott wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 11:51 AM > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475 > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rheap: move rheap.c from arch/powerpc/lib/ to > > lib/ > > > > That doesn't involve a different alignment for each allocation. It uses > > the same alignment for all of them, and the alignment that cpm_common.c > > provides to rh_init() is 1 byte. > > > > ...but sigh, cpm_muram_alloc() is changing cpm_muram_info.alignment > > behind the rheap code's back. Despite the existence of rh_alloc_align(). > > > > So yes, add aligned allocation functionality to genalloc, but don't > > duplicate > > gen_pool_alloc() to do so. Instead, rename gen_pool_alloc() to > > gen_pool_alloc_align() with an alignment parameter (also modifying the > > algo function to take an alignment arg, which > > gen_pool_first_fit_order_align() would ignore), and provide a > > Here, I don’t understand how to handle the algo In your mind. > Can you explain more detailly?
The algorithms would be unchanged except that they would receive a new alignment (or alignment mask) parameter. gen_pool_first_fit_order_align() would ignore it, but the other algorithms would pass it through to the bitmap allocator. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
