> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline void *iommu_alloc_page_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return iommu_alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, 0);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> TBH I'm not entirely convinced that saving 4 characters per invocation
> >> times 11 invocations makes this wrapper worthwhile :/
> >
> > Let's keep them. After the clean-up that you suggested, there are
> > fewer functions left in this file, but I think that it is cleaner to
> > keep these remaining, as it is beneficial to easily distinguish when
> > exactly one page is allocated vs when multiple are allocated via code
> > search.
>
> But is it, really? It's not at all obvious to me *why* it would be
> significantly interesting to distinguish fixed order-0 allocations from
> higher-order or variable-order (which may still be 0) ones. After all,
> there's no regular alloc_page_node() wrapper, yet plenty more callers of
> alloc_pages_node(..., 0) :/
The pages that are allocated with order > 0 cannot be freed using
iommu_put_pages_list(), without messing up refcounts in the tail
pages. I think having a dedicated function that guarantees order = 0
pages allocation makes it easier for the reviewer to follow the code,
and ensures that only these pages are put on the freelist.
Even in the existing code, the order=0 allocation is wrapped in the
*alloc_pgtable_page() function.
Pasha
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
