Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160338-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
	Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
	Kingdom.
	Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240422115541.38548-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
References: <20240422115541.38548-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
    pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
    Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
    Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
    Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rxrpc: Fix using alignmask being zero for __page_frag_alloc_align()
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2650222.1714147067.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:57:47 +0100
Message-ID: <2650223.1714147067@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:

> rxrpc_alloc_data_txbuf() may be called with data_align being
> zero in none_alloc_txbuf() and rxkad_alloc_txbuf(), data_align
> is supposed to be an order-based alignment value, but zero is
> not a valid order-based alignment value

Ummm... 0 *would be* a valid order-based[*] alignment (pow(2,0) is 1).  It
might actually make more sense to do that than to pass in the number of by=
tes,
then 0 is the default, but either way works.

[*] Other places that take an order-based parameter include things like
    alloc_pages().  The number of pages being requested is pow(2,order).

> +	return rxrpc_alloc_data_txbuf(call, min_t(size_t, remain, RXRPC_JUMBO_=
DATALEN), 1U, gfp);
> +		return rxrpc_alloc_data_txbuf(call, space, 1U, gfp);

The 'U' should be unnecessary.

> +	data_align =3D max_t(size_t, data_align, L1_CACHE_BYTES);

data_align =3D umax(data_align, L1_CACHE_BYTES);

would be better, I think.

Anyway, with the umax change above:

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>