From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f198.google.com (mail-qt0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0546D6B0292 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f198.google.com with SMTP id o3so76768699qto.15 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x244.google.com (mail-qt0-x244.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p22si7506qtg.225.2017.07.17.12.10.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x244.google.com with SMTP id j25so5625770qtf.0 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:10:09 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] percpu: fix misnomer in schunk/dchunk variable names Message-ID: <20170717191009.GA585283@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20170716022315.19892-1-dennisz@fb.com> <20170716022315.19892-8-dennisz@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170716022315.19892-8-dennisz@fb.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dennis Zhou Cc: Christoph Lameter , kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dennis Zhou On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote: > From: "Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" > > With moving the base_addr in the chunks responsible for serving the > first chunk up, the use of schunk/dchunk in pcpu_setup_first_chunk no > longer makes sense. This makes the linking in the first chunk code not > rely on a ternary and renames the variables to a shared variable, chunk, > because the allocation path is sequential. Ah cool, please disregard my previous comment on the misnomer. You can explain in the previous patch's description that a follow-up patch will resolve the situation tho. > @@ -1709,13 +1709,13 @@ int __init pcpu_setup_first_chunk(const struct pcpu_alloc_info *ai, > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcpu_slot[i]); > > /* > + * Initialize first chunk. > + * pcpu_first_chunk will always manage the dynamic region of the > + * first chunk. The static region is dropped as those addresses Would "not covered by any chunk" be clearer than "dropped"? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org