Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:10:09 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennisz@fb.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, kernel-team@fb.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@gmail.com>
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>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1020
Lines: 27

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> From: "Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@gmail.com>
> 
> 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