Re: [PATCH 2/2] rheap: move rheap.c from arch/powerpc/lib/ to lib/

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 01:05 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-09 at 11:51 -0500, Wood Scott wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 11:51 AM
> > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rheap: move rheap.c from arch/powerpc/lib/ to
> > lib/
> > 
> > That doesn't involve a different alignment for each allocation.  It uses
> > the same alignment for all of them, and the alignment that cpm_common.c
> > provides to rh_init() is 1 byte.
> > 
> > ...but sigh, cpm_muram_alloc() is changing cpm_muram_info.alignment
> > behind the rheap code's back.  Despite the existence of rh_alloc_align().
> > 
> > So yes, add aligned allocation functionality to genalloc, but don't
> > duplicate
> > gen_pool_alloc() to do so.  Instead, rename gen_pool_alloc() to
> > gen_pool_alloc_align() with an alignment parameter (also modifying the
> > algo function to take an alignment arg, which
> > gen_pool_first_fit_order_align() would ignore), and provide a
> 
> Here, I don’t understand how to handle the algo In your mind. 
> Can you explain more detailly?

The algorithms would be unchanged except that they would receive a new 
alignment (or alignment mask) parameter.  gen_pool_first_fit_order_align() 
would ignore it, but the other algorithms would pass it through to the bitmap 
allocator.

-Scott