On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 09:58:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 29.03.21 22:12, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 07:44:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:25:53AM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > size_t in cma_alloc is confusing since it makes people think > > > > it's byte count, not pages. Fix it. > > > > > > i think it has to be unsigned long. > > > > > > 67a2e213e7e937c41c52ab5bc46bf3f4de469f6e > > Right. > > Fortunately, we don't have such large allocations yet via > CMA/alloc_contig_range > > > > > Thanks for the pinter. I wanted to have the smallest change. > > The commit leads me to change cma_release, trace_cma_alloc, > > cma_clear_bitmap and front_contig_range as well.(Not sure > > we have more. Will check). > > > > Ccing david@xxxxxxxxxx for upcoming changing free_contig_range. > > While at it, we might want to convert free_contig_range() to eat > "unsigned long start, unsigned long end" like alloc_contig_range(), instead > of "unsigned long pfn, unsigned int nr_pages" like alloc_contig_pages() ... Well, I personllay tempted to change alloc_contig_range, not free_contig_range because base_pfn with nr_pages was more straightforward than base_pfn and end_pfn in that we don't need to tell whether end_pfn is inclusive or exclusive. When I look at callers of [alloc|free]_contig_range, many of them already have used nr_pages based approach rather than start_pfn, end_pfn. If your suggestion come from that "it's *range* API", I'd like to rename it with "alloc_contig_pages|free_contig_pages". Since it's beyond the goal of this patch and might be controversial, I will not deal with it in this patch.
