[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2AB94CD5-3374-4A15-9422-689EE2549FC6@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:39:41 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: use generic free_initrd_mem()
On October 15, 2019 2:46:59 AM GMT+02:00, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:02:26AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> arm64 calls memblock_free() for the initrd area in its implementation
>of
>> free_initrd_mem(), but this call has no actual effect that late in
>the boot
>> process. By the time initrd is freed, all the reserved memory is
>managed by
>> the page allocator and the memblock.reserved is unused, so the only
>purpose
>> of the memblock_free() call is to keep track of initrd memory for
>debugging
>> and accounting.
>>
>> Without the memblock_free() call the only difference between arm64
>and the
>> generic versions of free_initrd_mem() is the memory poisoning.
>>
>> Move memblock_free() call to the generic code, enable it there
>> for the architectures that define ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK and use the
>generic
>> implementation of free_initrd_mem() on arm64.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v4:
>> * memblock_free() aligned area around the initrd
>
>Looks straightforward to me:
>
>Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Can it go via arm64 tree?
>Will
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists