Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 May 2010 23:19:57 -0700 | From | Yinghai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/35] lmb: prepare x86 to use lmb to replace early_res |
| |
On 05/13/2010 07:12 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:19 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> 1. expose lmb_debug >> 2. expose lmb_reserved_init_regions >> 3. expose lmb_add_region >> 4. prection for include linux/lmb.h in mm/page_alloc.c and mm/bootmem.c >> 5. lmb_find_base() should return LMB_ERROR in one failing path. >> (this one cost me 3 hours !) >> 6. move LMB_ERROR to lmb.h > > Oh well, let's start somewhere... > >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> >> --- >> include/linux/lmb.h | 4 ++++ >> lib/lmb.c | 21 +++++++++------------ >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/lmb.h b/include/linux/lmb.h >> index 6f8c4bd..7987766 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/lmb.h >> +++ b/include/linux/lmb.h >> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >> #include <asm/lmb.h> >> >> #define INIT_LMB_REGIONS 128 >> +#define LMB_ERROR (~(phys_addr_t)0) > > Ok so this was meant to remain internal. You seem to want to expose a > whole lot of LMB internals, I suppose for your new arch/x86/lmb.c and I > really really don't like it. > > If we expose LMB_ERROR then all lmb calls that can fail should return > that. However, the API calls all return 0 instead. Changing that means > fixing all callers.
ok will stop use LMB_ERROR out lib/lmb.c
will go back to use -1ULL for x86 path.
> > We can't just have a mix bag of result code in stuff that is exposed. > > If all you need LMB_ERROR is to expose lmb_find_area() and > lmb_add_region() then make the above __ and export a public variant of > it that returns 0. > > But that's not the right approach. The right thing to do I believe is to > instead change LMB to use proper errno.h values. > > For things like lmb_add_region(), return then as a negative int. For > things that return a phys_addr_t as well with a proper casting macro > since I -think- we can safely consider that phys addrs in the range > -PAGE_SIZE..-1 can be error codes. Just like we do for PTR_ERR etc... > > This should be a separate patch btw. > > I'm also not too happy with exposing lmb_add_region(). Why would you > ever need to expose it ? Just call lmb_reserve() if you want to reserve > something. lmb_add_region() is an internal function and has no business > being used outside of the main lmb.c file. > > Also: > >> /* Calculate new doubled size */ >> old_size = type->max * sizeof(struct lmb_region); >> new_size = old_size << 1; >> @@ -206,7 +199,7 @@ static int lmb_double_array(struct lmb_type *type) >> new_array = kmalloc(new_size, GFP_KERNEL); >> addr = new_array == NULL ? LMB_ERROR : __pa(new_array); >> } else >> - addr = lmb_find_base(new_size, sizeof(phys_addr_t), 0, LMB_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE); >> + addr = lmb_find_base(new_size, sizeof(struct lmb_region), 0, LMB_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE); > > Why this change ? Does it need to be aligned to the struct size ? if you > really want that and have a good justification, make this a separate > patch and explain why you are doing that in the changeset comment.
will drop that
> >> if (addr == LMB_ERROR) { >> pr_err("lmb: Failed to double %s array from %ld to %ld entries !\n", >> lmb_type_name(type), type->max, type->max * 2); >> @@ -214,6 +207,10 @@ static int lmb_double_array(struct lmb_type *type) >> } >> new_array = __va(addr); >> >> + if (lmb_debug) >> + pr_info("lmb: %s array is doubled to %ld at %llx - %llx", >> + lmb_type_name(type), type->max * 2, (u64)addr, (u64)addr + new_size); >> + >> /* Found space, we now need to move the array over before >> * we add the reserved region since it may be our reserved >> * array itself that is full. >> @@ -249,7 +246,7 @@ extern int __weak lmb_memory_can_coalesce(phys_addr_t addr1, phys_addr_t size1, >> return 1; >> } > > Cheers, > Ben.
| |