On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:43:02AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> index e3240d16040b..17a475380253 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> @@ -62,6 +62,26 @@ unsafe fn realloc(
> ));
> }
>
> + // ISO C (ISO/IEC 9899:2011) defines `aligned_alloc`:
> + //
> + // > The value of alignment shall be a valid alignment supported by the implementation
> + // [...].
> + //
> + // As an example of the "supported by the implementation" requirement, POSIX.1-2001 (IEEE
> + // 1003.1-2001) defines `posix_memalign`:
> + //
> + // > The value of alignment shall be a power of two multiple of sizeof (void *).
> + //
> + // and POSIX-based implementations of `aligned_alloc` inherit this requirement. At the time
> + // of writing, this is known to be the case on macOS (but not in glibc).
> + //
> + // Satisfy the stricter requirement to avoid spurious test failures on some platforms.
> + let min_align = core::mem::size_of::<*const crate::ffi::c_void>();
> + let layout = layout.align_to(min_align).unwrap_or_else(|_err| {
> + crate::build_error!("invalid alignment")
That's not what I thought this patch will look like. I thought you'll directly
follow Gary's proposal, which is why I said you can keep the ACK.
build_error!() doesn't work here, there is no guarantee that this can be
evaluated at compile time.
I think this should just be:
let layout = layout.align_to(min_align).map_err(|_| AllocError)?.pad_to_align();
- Danilo
> + });
> + let layout = layout.pad_to_align();
> +
> // SAFETY: Returns either NULL or a pointer to a memory allocation that satisfies or
> // exceeds the given size and alignment requirements.
> let dst = unsafe { libc_aligned_alloc(layout.align(), layout.size()) } as *mut u8;
