Hi Ard,
Thanks for your reply.
In my understanding address and size need to meet consistent alignment
constraints,If I understand wrong, please reject this patch.
Best,
GaoSheng.
在 2021/11/4 17:26, Ard Biesheuvel 写道:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 03:04, Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are doing page-based allocations, and both the address
and size must meet alignment constraints, so using "align"
for the size alignment is a better choice.
Why is it a better choice? If I allocate a 2 MB aligned block of
memory, why is it better to align the size to a multiple of 2 MB as
well?
Signed-off-by: Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/randomalloc.c | 2 +-
drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/randomalloc.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/randomalloc.c
index 724155b9e10d..7b7159bb035d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/randomalloc.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/randomalloc.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_random_alloc(unsigned long size,
if (align < EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN)
align = EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN;
- size = round_up(size, EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN);
+ size = round_up(size, align);
/* count the suitable slots in each memory map entry */
for (map_offset = 0; map_offset < map_size; map_offset += desc_size) {
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c
index 8ee9eb2b9039..d6d27e8c23f8 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_low_alloc_above(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
if (align < EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN)
align = EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN;
- size = round_up(size, EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN);
+ size = round_up(size, align);
nr_pages = size / EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
for (i = 0; i < map_size / desc_size; i++) {
efi_memory_desc_t *desc;
--
2.30.0
.
