[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87msh2rz3f.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:58:12 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michael Petlan
<mpetlan@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/entry: Add __init to ia32_emulation_override_cmdline()
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com> writes:
> On 10.12.24 г. 17:16 ч., Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> ia32_emulation_override_cmdline() is an early_param() arg and these
>> are only needed at boot time. In fact, all other early_param() functions
>> in arch/x86 seem to have '__init' annotation and
>> ia32_emulation_override_cmdline() is the only exception.
>>
>> Fixes: a11e097504ac ("x86: Make IA32_EMULATION boot time configurable")
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
>
Thanks!
> nit: Does it really warrant a Fix tag, it's not a bug per-se, just frees
> up some memory?
I don't think we have any issues with early_param() functions without
__init currently, by 'Fixes:' I meant "this fixes commit ... which was
sub-optimal" and to help backporters. I'm absolutely fine with dropping
it if that's the consensus.
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists