On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:29:33 +0200, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:54:42 +0200
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
The "freed" seems redundant to me. Wouldn't "alloc_contig_pages" be a
better name?
The “freed” is there because the function operates on pages that are in
buddy system, ie. it is given a range of PFNs that are to be removed
from buddy system.
There's also a alloc_contig_range() function (added by next patch)
which frees pages in given range and then calls
alloc_contig_free_pages() to allocate them.
IMO, if there was an alloc_contig_pages() function, it would have to
be one level up (ie. it would figure out where to allocate memory and
then call alloc_contig_range()). (That's really what CMA is doing).
Still, as I think of it now, maybe alloc_contig_free_range() would be
better?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
