Re: [PATCH 4.19 200/321] mm/page_alloc.c: deduplicate __memblock_free_early() and memblock_free()

Mike Rapoport
2019-12-05T13:11:40Z

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:50:43PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> On Tue 2019-12-03 23:34:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Wentao Wang <witallwang@gmail.com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit d31cfe7bff9109476da92c245b56083e9b48d60a ]
>
>
> > @@ -1537,12 +1537,7 @@ void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(
> > */
> > void __init __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > {
> > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > -
> > - memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pF\n",
> > - __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > - kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size);
> > - memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
> > + memblock_free(base, size);
> > }
>
> This makes the memblock_dbg() less useful: _RET_IP_ will now be one of
> __memblock_free_early(), not of the original caller.
>
> That may be okay, but I guess it should be mentioned in changelog, and
> I don't really see why it is queued for -stable.

Not sure why this one was picked for -stable, but in upstream there is a
followup commit 4d72868c8f7c ("memblock: replace usage of
__memblock_free_early() with memblock_free()") that completely eliminates
__memblock_free_early(). IMHO it would make sense to either to take both or
to drop both.

> Best regards,
> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.