Hi Nuno,
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:42:02AM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:34 -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:58:14PM +0100, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/counter/counter-core.c b/drivers/counter/counter-core.c
> > > index 09c77afb33ca..073bf6b67a57 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/counter/counter-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/counter/counter-core.c
> > > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ struct counter_device_allochelper {
> > > * This is cache line aligned to ensure private data behaves like if it
> > > * were kmalloced separately.
> > > */
> > > - unsigned long privdata[] ____cacheline_aligned;
> > > + unsigned long privdata[] __aligned(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN);
> > > };
> > >
> > > static void counter_device_release(struct device *dev)
> > >
> >
> > This change sounds reasonable, but should the comment block above
> > privdata be updated to reflect the change?
>
> Yeah, maybe. I can spin a new version with that... To be sure, you mean (in the
> comment) private -> privdata, right?
I guess he means: "This is cache line aligned to ensure private data
behaves like if it were kmalloced separately." After your change it's
not cache line aligned any more. IMHO keeping "private" is fine.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
