[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180625180717.GS28965@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:07:17 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/memblock: add missing include <linux/bootmem.h>
On Mon 25-06-18 19:15:12, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Commit 26f09e9b3a06 ("mm/memblock: add memblock memory allocation apis")
> introduced two new function definitions:
>
> memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic()
> memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid()
>
> Commit ea1f5f3712af ("mm: define memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw")
> introduced the following function definition:
>
> memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw()
>
> This commit adds an include of header file <linux/bootmem.h> to provide
> the missing function prototypes. Silence the following gcc warning
> (W=1):
>
> mm/memblock.c:1334:15: warning: no previous prototype for `memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> mm/memblock.c:1371:15: warning: no previous prototype for `memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> mm/memblock.c:1407:15: warning: no previous prototype for `memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>
> It also adds #ifdef blockers to prevent compilation failure on mips/ia64
> where CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=n. Because Makefile already does:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK) += memblock.o
>
> The #ifdef has been simplified from:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK) && defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM)
>
> to simply:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM)
Well, I would apreciate an explanation why do we need NO_BOOTMEM guard
in the first place rather than why HAVE_MEMBLOCK is not needed.
> Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
Anyway this looks better. I wish we can actually get rid of bootmem
allocator which would simplify this as well but that is another topic.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
> v2: Simplify #ifdef
>
> mm/memblock.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 03d48d8835ba..611a970ac902 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/kmemleak.h>
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> +#include <linux/bootmem.h>
>
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> @@ -1224,6 +1225,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, i
> return memblock_alloc_base(size, align, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE);
> }
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM)
> /**
> * memblock_virt_alloc_internal - allocate boot memory block
> * @size: size of memory block to be allocated in bytes
> @@ -1431,6 +1433,7 @@ void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(
> (u64)max_addr);
> return NULL;
> }
> +#endif
>
> /**
> * __memblock_free_early - free boot memory block
> --
> 2.11.0
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists