From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B904C54E67 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=EFuQrpr1; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4V03SN5Nfvz3dng for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:38:44 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=EFuQrpr1; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=139.178.84.217; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=rppt@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4V03RY5hwnz2y3b for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:38:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8652A61000; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFA07C43390; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:37:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1710927476; bh=6en8ZZ+fOEyondqQ+Wkc9mV58Xe+D619z940m0qzrm8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EFuQrpr1jzAOMq8F2IC3MV1yHDLmeckZtzWRKrHwdvnnIsPr3aiWwWV0UCpseJgMY CLVANZ2nMu20Vx/v7G0qEug+XY6D17CKFoScSKv7iSfSJc2Mk18dZpNZn4XDJFWD0v D0+Iz0wZTgbvswkA8UBsLimhMs893ReE4MErG0J74+jQX4sBmANFRvKSvZ41ojznqH QuINWdgXEerhnWjAkQVXdAWfUcu3ZMhme4xnes4TORjpi+glPdrPb1mPMv70cHmNA9 fONx+GdtQX9iLu0n0AOPGjt2ahtYbmAaywQkrxrgvSP6aksTyWRav+DygUuV1rn+pp cjy7ab8i7wtKQ== Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:36:51 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Baoquan He Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: remove memblock_find_dma_reserve() Message-ID: References: <20240318142138.783350-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20240318142138.783350-3-bhe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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.