From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933394Ab3LESvW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:51:22 -0500
Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:45510 "EHLO
	mail-qe0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752293Ab3LESvV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:51:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:51:16 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Strashko, Grygorii" <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Cc: "Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis
Message-ID: <20131205185116.GA27274@mtj.dyndns.org>
References: <1386037658-3161-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <1386037658-3161-9-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <20131203232445.GX8277@htj.dyndns.org>
 <52A0AB34.2030703@ti.com>
 <20131205165325.GA24062@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <902E09E6452B0E43903E4F2D568737AB097B26B2@DNCE04.ent.ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <902E09E6452B0E43903E4F2D568737AB097B26B2@DNCE04.ent.ti.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hey,

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:48:21PM +0000, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
> +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \
> +       __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
> 
> which will be transformed to 
> +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x, align) \
> +       __alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
> 
> and used as
> 
> memblock_virt_alloc(size, 0);
> 
> so, by default bootmem code will use 0 as default alignment and not SMP_CACHE_BYTES
> and that is wrong.

Just translate it to SMP_CACHE_BYTES?  Am I missing something here?
You're defining a new API which wraps around two interfaces.  Wrap
them so that they show the same desired behavior?

-- 
tejun