Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:11:44 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?
References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CABGGisyVpfYCz7-5AGB-3Ld9hcuikPVk=19xPc1AwffjhsV+kg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABGGisyVpfYCz7-5AGB-3Ld9hcuikPVk=19xPc1AwffjhsV+kg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Message-Id: <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this is just a matter of work?
> 
> Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches
> recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with
> some DT changes.

I have a patch for alpha nearly ready.
That leaves m68k and ia64
 
> > Btw. what really needs to be
> > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done
> > in that regards?
> 
> No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's
> a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support.
> 
> Rob
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.