From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: remove memblock_find_dma_reserve()
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:36:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfqV1IEo3+cf9f9I@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:52:52PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/19/24 at 05:49pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi Baoquan,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:21:34PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > This is not needed any more.
> >
> > I'd swap this and the first patch, so that the first patch would remove
> > memblock_find_dma_reserve() and it's changelog will explain why it's not
> > needed and then the second patch will simply drop unused set_dma_reserve()
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> My thought on the patch 1/2 splitting is:
> patch 1 is removing all relevant codes in mm, including the usage of
> dma_reserve in free_area_init_core() and exporting set_dma_reserve()
> to any ARCH which want to subtract the dma_reserve from DMA zone.
>
> Patch 2 purely remove the code in x86 ARCH about how to get dma_reserve.
I think it's better first to remove the usage of set_dma_reserve() in x86
and then clean up the unused code.
> Your suggestion is also good to me, I can rearrange the order and
> repost.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: remove memblock_find_dma_reserve()
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:36:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfqV1IEo3+cf9f9I@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:52:52PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/19/24 at 05:49pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi Baoquan,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:21:34PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > This is not needed any more.
> >
> > I'd swap this and the first patch, so that the first patch would remove
> > memblock_find_dma_reserve() and it's changelog will explain why it's not
> > needed and then the second patch will simply drop unused set_dma_reserve()
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> My thought on the patch 1/2 splitting is:
> patch 1 is removing all relevant codes in mm, including the usage of
> dma_reserve in free_area_init_core() and exporting set_dma_reserve()
> to any ARCH which want to subtract the dma_reserve from DMA zone.
>
> Patch 2 purely remove the code in x86 ARCH about how to get dma_reserve.
I think it's better first to remove the usage of set_dma_reserve() in x86
and then clean up the unused code.
> Your suggestion is also good to me, I can rearrange the order and
> repost.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-20 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-18 14:21 [PATCH 0/6] mm/mm_init.c: refactor free_area_init_core() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/6] mm/mm_init.c: remove the useless dma_reserve Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: remove memblock_find_dma_reserve() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-19 15:49 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-03-19 15:49 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-03-20 7:52 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 7:52 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2024-03-20 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-03-20 13:14 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 13:14 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm/mm_init.c: add new function calc_nr_kernel_pages() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm/mm_init.c: remove meaningless calculation of zone->managed_pages in free_area_init_core() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-19 16:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-03-19 16:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-03-20 8:18 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 8:18 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 8:47 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-20 8:47 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm/mm_init.c: remove unneeded calc_memmap_size() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm/mm_init.c: remove arch_reserved_kernel_pages() Baoquan He
2024-03-18 14:21 ` Baoquan He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.