Re: LMB regression...

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:35:33 +1000

> Sounds like we need a test suite :)

Maybe :-)  Anyways, here is the bug fix I plan to push to
Linus with my sparc64 NUMA changes, unless someone has an
objection:

[LMB]: Fix lmb allocation regression.

Changeset d9024df02ffe74d723d97d552f86de3b34beb8cc ("[LMB] Restructure
allocation loops to avoid unsigned underflow") removed the alignment
of the 'size' argument to call lmb_add_region() done by __lmb_alloc_base().

In doing so it reintroduced the bug fixed by changeset
eea89e13a9c61d3928223d2f9bf2295e22e0efb6 ("[LMB]: Fix bug in
__lmb_alloc_base().").

This puts it back.

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
 lib/lmb.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c
index 896e283..207147a 100644
--- a/lib/lmb.c
+++ b/lib/lmb.c
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ u64 __init __lmb_alloc_base(u64 size, u64 align, u64 max_addr)
 			if (j < 0) {
 				/* this area isn't reserved, take it */
 				if (lmb_add_region(&lmb.reserved, base,
-						   size) < 0)
+						   lmb_align_up(size, align)) < 0)
 					return 0;
 				return base;
 			}
-- 
1.5.5.1.57.g5909c