OK to merge via powerpc? (was Re: [PATCH 05/14] mm: make memblock_alloc_base_nid non-static)

OK to merge via powerpc? (was Re: [PATCH 05/14] mm: make memblock_alloc_base_nid non-static)

[Michael Ellerman]

Anyone object to us merging the following patch via the powerpc tree?

Full series is here if anyone's interested:
  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=28377&state=*

cheers

Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> This will be used by powerpc to allocate per-cpu stacks and other
> data structures node-local where possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h | 5 ++++-
>  mm/memblock.c            | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 8be5077efb5f..8cab51398705 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -316,9 +316,12 @@ static inline bool memblock_bottom_up(void)
>  #define MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE	(~(phys_addr_t)0)
>  #define MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE	0
>  
> -phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
>  					phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
>  					ulong flags);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_base_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> +					phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr,
> +					int nid, ulong flags);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
>  				phys_addr_t max_addr);
>  phys_addr_t __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 5a9ca2a1751b..cea2af494da0 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1190,7 +1190,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
>  					flags);
>  }
>  
> -static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_base_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_base_nid(phys_addr_t size,
>  					phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr,
>  					int nid, ulong flags)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.16.1

Re: OK to merge via powerpc? (was Re: [PATCH 05/14] mm: make memblock_alloc_base_nid non-static)

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:06:35 +1100 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> Anyone object to us merging the following patch via the powerpc tree?
> 
> Full series is here if anyone's interested:
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=28377&state=*
> 

Yup, please go ahead.

I assume the change to the memblock_alloc_range() declaration was an
unrelated, unchangelogged cleanup.

Re: OK to merge via powerpc? (was Re: [PATCH 05/14] mm: make memblock_alloc_base_nid non-static)

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:41:28 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:06:35 +1100 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Anyone object to us merging the following patch via the powerpc tree?
> > 
> > Full series is here if anyone's interested:
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=28377&state=*
> >   
> 
> Yup, please go ahead.
> 
> I assume the change to the memblock_alloc_range() declaration was an
> unrelated, unchangelogged cleanup.
> 

It is. I'm trying to get better at that. Michael might drop that bit if
he's not already sick of fixing up my patches...

Thanks,
Nick