From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BD121ADC70; Sat, 1 Feb 2025 21:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738447122; cv=none; b=PYyu2xapfU5/F2bWSoaCwZizonKDMh479q9mA8vVQ3gHILrX6abfh4lFlStvAfKQNmZC37La6ApA+W1Z5Mv+VtfXjo7HUqnrEuyExWI+AAPgB4qq2pP1UVks15fOsTzeUUnQfIXquFKJlING0kITppHY50OCL4iIlxHMBfVQBqk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738447122; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4yah1ABe3jE+Fe5JVSEIfySOMTAzN0kapjiR7MMrkGc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=d7RrdAcx4Dj/4w8rJBWWSNQo6+2Uk3DouNAHRWitTBnGtEReaSAYe8k7sIYYW2fCsVHLsfTVMcxBMymJtZp7hQZj39zEQzq9HQqAVwtJrNkqqyrAxasH0QUEPmzYfSS8lIFin9CcoaQhlMjkPIiwpHTazQT7O5XR2CF8HmPk8p4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ioy/mTlh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ioy/mTlh" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49859C4CED3; Sat, 1 Feb 2025 21:58:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738447121; bh=4yah1ABe3jE+Fe5JVSEIfySOMTAzN0kapjiR7MMrkGc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ioy/mTlhjq9m151pNAFVsf1W+L+m+A4nicWYXv7TIwJDqoGQZLoM4KpoRkwrD4psM hsBxU95ZF7BoFQ/CKqZnXRuHXyGtBONdkfQffwQCoNqZjjoF/0jLdfE/haKQcjz0uH b/UMAQtklUP6sGx3s14ReJJFgzEc/qBjZ5t3XYRIIoSF2sDOcKwa0oIijpWDQrEz6x RRSQ3M7i75tOdoRXZgLQHjsGvj+oCFWZKcKOgVTR7LJq/W2hBEiQ6S2FXGF6j6sQ3e uzo1YXFq6SyOJaPKXGzkL41RWQSWEqnYUf7t6XtjU8eZoKkSLMIC5uZF88IcLjHYAy YNOJhtLm6ssqQ== Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:58:36 +0100 From: Danilo Krummrich To: Tamir Duberstein Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Alice Ryhl , Trevor Gross , rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: alloc: satisfy `aligned_alloc` requirements Message-ID: References: <20250201-aligned-alloc-v1-1-c99a73f3cbd4@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 04:19:48PM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > Hi Danilo, thanks for the review! > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 3:18 PM Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > > > I think I prefer this to be slightly more compact: > > > > let min_align = core::mem::size_of::<*const crate::ffi::c_void>(); > > let (align, size) = if layout.align() < min_align { > > (min_align, layout.size().div_ceil(min_align) * min_align) > > } else { > > (layout.align(), layout.size()) > > }; > > I was trying to avoid repeated calls to either function, but I'm happy > to shorten the variable names. Would that suit? I think calling layout.align() twice is fine, no need shadow align for that.