From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng2.m.smailru.net (smtpng2.m.smailru.net [94.100.179.3])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818F14765E0
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 24 Dec 2020 18:13:45 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1608715671.git.mechanik20051988@gmail.com>
 <2053b49dff3cb419245d243e96dbe981625be6d2.1608715671.git.mechanik20051988@gmail.com>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <19e40698-466e-ac1f-5c77-0eca2deb85d4@tarantool.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:13:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2053b49dff3cb419245d243e96dbe981625be6d2.1608715671.git.mechanik20051988@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 3/3] small: changed small
	allocator pool management
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: mechanik20051988 <mechanik20.05.1988@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Thanks for the fixes!

On 23.12.2020 14:14, mechanik20051988 wrote:
> 1. Fxed
> 2. As i understand you comment, you wrote that pools 
>    should be aligned on the 8-byte boundary. 
>    This is guaranteed by the granularity parameter in small_class if min_alloc
>    have 8-byte boundary alignment. We calculate 
>    min_alloc = objsize_min = small_align(objsize_min, sizeof(intptr_t));
>    and pass granularity sizeof(uintptr_t).

No, I meant the indentation alignment is broken. If a
function call consists of multiple lines, the non-first
lines should be aligned by '(' + 1. See examples in
the existing code.