linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: use memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:53:48 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: use memblock_alloc_range() or
 memblock_alloc_base()

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:56:02 +0900 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:

> Replace memblock_find_in_range() and memblock_reserve() with
> memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base().

Please spend a little more time preparing the changelogs?

Why are we making this change?  Because memblock_alloc_range() is
equivalent to memblock_find_in_range()+memblock_reserve() and it's just
a cleanup?  Or is there some deeper functional reason?

Does memblock_find_in_range() need to exist?  Can we convert all
callers to memblock_alloc_range()?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/