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@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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. 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. > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html