From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] initramfs: proide a generic free_initrd_mem implementation Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20190213184448.GB20399@lst.de> References: <20190213174621.29297-1-hch@lst.de> <20190213174621.29297-8-hch@lst.de> <20190213184139.GC15270@rapoport-lnx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190213184139.GC15270@rapoport-lnx> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , Guan Xuetao , Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:40PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > csky seems to open-code free_reserved_page with the only > difference that it's also increments totalram_pages for the freed pages, > which doesn't seem correct anyway... > > That said, I suppose arch/csky can be also added to the party. Yes, I noticed that. But I'd rather move it over manually in another patch post rc1 or for the next merge window. > > +void __weak free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > +{ > > + free_reserved_area((void *)start, (void *)end, -1, "initrd"); > > Some architectures have pr_info("Freeing initrd memory..."), I'd add it for > the generic version as well. Well, if we think such a printk is useful it should probably be moved to the caller in init/initramfs.c instead. I can include a patch for that in the next iteration of the series. > Another thing that I was thinking of is that x86 has all those memory > protection calls in its free_initrd_mem, maybe it'd make sense to have them > in the generic version as well? Maybe. But I'd rather keep it out of the initial series as it looks a little more complicated. Having a single implementation of free_initrd_mem would be great, though. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:44788 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2406160AbfBMSot (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:44:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:44:48 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] initramfs: proide a generic free_initrd_mem implementation Message-ID: <20190213184448.GB20399@lst.de> References: <20190213174621.29297-1-hch@lst.de> <20190213174621.29297-8-hch@lst.de> <20190213184139.GC15270@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190213184139.GC15270@rapoport-lnx> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Guan Xuetao , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190213184448.IzmZgiOY2Ja9GM8vkEwXo4301FZRHH9pKOQg9d0zOCM@z> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:41:40PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > csky seems to open-code free_reserved_page with the only > difference that it's also increments totalram_pages for the freed pages, > which doesn't seem correct anyway... > > That said, I suppose arch/csky can be also added to the party. Yes, I noticed that. But I'd rather move it over manually in another patch post rc1 or for the next merge window. > > +void __weak free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > +{ > > + free_reserved_area((void *)start, (void *)end, -1, "initrd"); > > Some architectures have pr_info("Freeing initrd memory..."), I'd add it for > the generic version as well. Well, if we think such a printk is useful it should probably be moved to the caller in init/initramfs.c instead. I can include a patch for that in the next iteration of the series. > Another thing that I was thinking of is that x86 has all those memory > protection calls in its free_initrd_mem, maybe it'd make sense to have them > in the generic version as well? Maybe. But I'd rather keep it out of the initial series as it looks a little more complicated. Having a single implementation of free_initrd_mem would be great, though.