On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:23:27AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Do we need to keep this comment that tied to an userspace tool? > > It think it is a pretty good reminder why it is here. Fair enough. I'm not opposing to it, just looks weird to me. > > > The issue with randholes is that it uses posix_memalign, and the pointer > > size constraint comes from that. > > > > I couldn't find any details on why this is required, but I'm assuming > > it's to keep posix_memalign architecture/implementation independent?! > > > > So, perhaps instead of being 'randholes' specific, it should specify to > > be posix compliant or because posix requires this way? > > Posix does not require the alignment to be larger than void *. Sorry, I'm not sure if I got what you mean here, perhaps I phrased it wrong, but I didn't mean to infer posix requires an alignment larger than void*, but that posix_memalign requires the 'alignment' to be a multiple of sizeof(void*). Although the smallest alignment, well, would be sizeof(void*) per se. FWIW, I'm not questioning your patch anymore, I'm just curious about these posix constraints. > Applications that directly feed the value to posix_memalign do. > And maybe that what could go into the comment. yeah, that would be nice to have. Cheers.
