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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CABGGisyVpfYCz7-5AGB-3Ld9hcuikPVk=19xPc1AwffjhsV+kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx>
In-Reply-To: <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:58:19 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+evsgh9Qi6FfG4vUZWtpC0UrFjTWSrzukMxY==TD_mrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?
To:     rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" 
        <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 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

And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms
which don't select NO_BOOTMEM.

Rob