Hello,
Sorry about the delay. Was traveling.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:30:51PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> +/* Allocation order. */
> +#define MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_HIGH_TO_LOW 0
> +#define MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_LOW_TO_HIGH 1
> +#define MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_DEFAULT MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_HIGH_TO_LOW
Can we please settle on either top_down/bottom_up or
high_to_low/low_to_high? The two seem to be used interchangeably in
the patch series. Also, it'd be more customary to use enum for things
like above, but more on the interface below.
> +static inline bool memblock_direction_bottom_up(void)
> +{
> + return memblock.current_direction == MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_LOW_TO_HIGH;
> +}
Maybe just memblock_bottom_up() would be enough?
Also, why not also have memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) as the
'set' interface?
> /**
> + * memblock_set_current_direction - Set current allocation direction to allow
> + * allocating memory from higher to lower
> + * address or from lower to higher address
> + *
> + * @direction: In which order to allocate memory. Could be
> + * MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_{HIGH_TO_LOW|LOW_TO_HIGH}
> + */
> +void memblock_set_current_direction(int direction);
Function comments should go with the function definition. Dunno what
happened with set_current_limit but let's please not spread it.
> +void __init_memblock memblock_set_current_direction(int direction)
> +{
> + if (direction != MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_HIGH_TO_LOW &&
> + direction != MEMBLOCK_DIRECTION_LOW_TO_HIGH) {
> + pr_warn("memblock: Failed to set allocation order. "
> + "Invalid order type: %d\n", direction);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + memblock.current_direction = direction;
> +}
If set_bottom_up() style interface is used, the above will be a lot
simpler, right? Also, it's kinda weird to have two separate patches
to introduce the flag and actually implement bottom up allocation.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>