From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755332AbZEZKCP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 06:02:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753445AbZEZKCE (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 06:02:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53482 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753133AbZEZKCD (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 06:02:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4A1BBE51.8090208@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:02:57 +0800 From: Amerigo Wang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090319) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, jdike@addtoit.com, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] x86 module: merge the rest functions with macros References: <20090526083717.5050.32719.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090526083734.5050.25473.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090526092157.GA25759@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090526092157.GA25759@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:35:22AM -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote: > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_UML) || defined(CONFIG_X86_32) >> +void *module_alloc(unsigned long size) >> +{ >> + if (size == 0) >> + return NULL; >> + return vmalloc_exec(size); >> +} >> +#else /*X86_64*/ >> +void *module_alloc(unsigned long size) >> +{ >> + struct vm_struct *area; >> + >> + if (!size) >> + return NULL; >> + size = PAGE_ALIGN(size); >> + if (size > MODULES_LEN) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + area = __get_vm_area(size, VM_ALLOC, MODULES_VADDR, MODULES_END); >> + if (!area) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + return __vmalloc_area(area, GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC); >> +} >> +#endif >> > > vmalloc_exec basically expands to the x86-64 version of that code, just > using VMALLOC_START/VMALLOC_END instead of MODULES_VADDR/MODULES_END. > > So instead of having two variants it would be better to use the x86-64 > unconditionally and define MODULES_VADDR/MODULES_END to > VMALLOC_START/VMALLOC_END to 32bit and uml. > > And that part should be a patch of it's own, not mixed with others. > Thanks, it is a good idea! But... vmalloc_exec() also sets __GFP_HIGHMEM, this is different from x86_64. No? Or __GFP_HIGHMEM is meaningless on x86_64? :-)