[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi=ooh9chSKyLipU6+eFbdfc680PUn3uKEoxLAMDMyMgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 09:24:07 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] EFI fixes, memblock quirk
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 2:59 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I marked it RFC: please have a second look at the mm/memblock.c change,
> which adds a INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS detour that ARM64 takes for
> these systems.
It's not pretty, but it looks minimal for now. Pulled.
> Perhaps we should upgrade the build time sizing of all platforms to
> INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS+NR_CPUS+1 and thus centrally give an extra
> allocation entry per CPU configured?
>
> Or is there some cleaner solution?
Is there some reason other platforms might want that kind of thing?
If not, then the current hack seems sufficient.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists