linux-kernel - Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

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]

Message-Id: <20180627155811.GA19182@rapoport-lnx>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:58:12 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" 
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work?
> > >
> > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches
> > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with
> > > some DT changes.
> >
> > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready.
> > That leaves m68k and ia64
> 
> And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms
> which don't select NO_BOOTMEM.

Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK...
 
> Rob
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.