Re: + memblock-add-assertion-for-zero-allocation-alignment.patchadded to -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:07:20 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/