On 09.01.22 08:39, Ercan Ersoy wrote: > > I have patched "Contiguous Memory Allocator" of Linux kernel. > > This fix of patch is for cma_init_reserved_mem function in > mm/cma.c source file as creating area without specific name. > > Without fix may be a problem a lot of cma as next cma2147483647 naming. > Without fix may be a problem huge memory systems. > > I think after "cma2147483647" naming is "cma-2147483648". > > Thanks for interesting, > Ercan > > --- START PATCH --- > From 5d3d01a3a0f7339617d1df945c0bd0ec1ab91ae3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ercan Ersoy <ercanersoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 10:01:14 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Fix assgining cma_area_count > > Fix assigning to cma->name in cma_init_reserved_mem function > in mm/cma.c source file. > Honestly, how on earth are we supposed to have that many CMA areas? It's limited by MAX_CMA_AREAS, which is usually ... 7 or 19. Calling this a fix is a bit though. This is a cleanup we might not care too much about. > Signed-off-by: Ercan Ersoy <ercanersoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/cma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c > index bc9ca8f3c487..03f01d1f1b57 100644 > --- a/mm/cma.c > +++ b/mm/cma.c > @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ int __init cma_init_reserved_mem(phys_addr_t base, > phys_addr_t size, > if (name) > snprintf(cma->name, CMA_MAX_NAME, name); > else > - snprintf(cma->name, CMA_MAX_NAME, "cma%d\n", cma_area_count); > + snprintf(cma->name, CMA_MAX_NAME, "cma%u\n", cma_area_count); > > cma->base_pfn = PFN_DOWN(base); > cma->count = size >> PAGE_SHIFT; -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
