Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:

> sorry for the delay...

me too.

> >BTW, does just separating map entry help something?  or, not just it?
> 
> now that i've picked over your code, i think it won't help, but it
> does avoid an entirely different problem (which may just be once of
> aesthetics).

I see.

> that said, i've read over your code more carefully, and i think i see
> where the problem is but since your code fixes the problem and
> enhances readability at the same time, it would probably be good to
> commit it.  thanks.

Ok, i'll commit it later.

> >One question about uvm_map_findspace() is that when topdown code is
> >integerated, it is changed not to call pmap_prefer and not to adjust
> >alignment for the given hint even if UVM_FLAG_FXIED is not specified.
> >Is this an intentional change?
> 
> i was specifically avoiding calling pmap_prefer, yes, since
> pmap_prefer *currently* only pushes addresses upwards to achieve
> alignment.  in the topdown world, one would want the address pushed
> down.  i have patches to change pmap_prefer from two arguments to four
> (adding topdown and size), but i have to retest them.

Ah, for topdown case, yes.  What I was concened is that bottom up
behaviour was also changed at the same time.

> as for not adjusting the alignment...i'm not sure i follow you.

I guess it is better to align if user didn't specfied hint but anyway
we fall back non-alignemnt case.

enami.