Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp592332imm; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYqSyuG9VuezEvIZ2+2FXwu1uxh1ZtUDrDUBxMsR+np79xxQgBt/JZxvmXZIvt12SM8uQwd X-Received: by 2002:a65:448a:: with SMTP id l10-v6mr32515367pgq.382.1537354599365; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:56:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1537354599; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ze48fxT08M5k2cfscJ+Z9yOQr+1sja2EWD93VDiOya3hhxnRLwMpWf7pzkdhAspou1 Q1tYXBIIhBZH47fi/uZHnxgcTf/Ohs1u7xQqkbrhYe/5um/xpd+XwnQZP77xIHs9Hgef cdTrAW8oMgc00Fbl/Iq7+UKIn//ARhvux4xfZRJquMdH65Ak/oqmH33eGLkJ9UGtDiPq qOevLTmlApEQ6oMeW87A5Sk1G2sSF3jUBAmQtfXSjURyi/AA+qMeeBn5FgiD/951mHXV giK3LQ8lTEbIC5OyEIcMkGXl/aISOZIXx9V9GVGWDORmeRVWtqPdtE+2lmoXZ+hzeqkM 7B0g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=UwK3skN+INB7nKX0yd6G47t0afZBoB+nzjyBxGLeup4=; b=h0o7SXtDoB/WbXqSJd3/bGtHxJcdwGKPuGXMO2v9eNlbQ7wf+qD4qNSHV0mUpdOQjr eSDNJQkkgYzdqMnftLb9936S0Jt0Z0wb4Rmp5UvKW1BrF7gRlnWhRM1Ecnt8woaml8g7 AkzuNOFD1X7tp6bmaRMMyuwVUkzSoN6C1UXV9RuU/l4tUT/chJjJ4Ov15iZg6V7cxqPX Wp1kJsOfJ0eajAMoXMIM8N6CjdDzJyhiT1jw3FTYaiwkiNSSTGICMSCeT+BgQpANTSKx HwTQK+6qq/PwXyWEGvS7ruAi5EwEAGE9GlLLffcHVS6bxeMyHE3Xh13DhduHbeKBYgj0 5W9A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p21-v6si20814791plo.182.2018.09.19.03.56.23; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:56:39 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731167AbeISQcr (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:45126 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727948AbeISQcr (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8JAt1hV031668 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 06:55:24 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mkky2txb0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 06:55:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:55:21 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:55:17 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w8JAtGFv54460514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:55:16 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD8311C04A; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:55:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C95D11C05C; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:54:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.207.135]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:54:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:55:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , "David S. Miller" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Michael Ellerman , Michal Hocko , Paul Burton , Thomas Gleixner , Tony Luck , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/29] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK References: <1536163184-26356-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1536163184-26356-4-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180919100449.00006df9@huawei.com> <20180919103457.GA20545@rapoport-lnx> <20180919114507.000059f3@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180919114507.000059f3@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18091910-0008-0000-0000-0000027376B0 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18091910-0009-0000-0000-000021DBCFBC Message-Id: <20180919105511.GB20545@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-09-19_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809190113 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:34:57 +0300 > Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:04:49AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:59:18 +0300 > > > Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > All architecures use memblock for early memory management. There is no need > > > > for the CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > A minor editing issue in here that is stopping boot on arm64 platforms with latest > > > version of the mm tree. > > > > Can you please try the following patch: > > > > > > From 079bd5d24a01df3df9500d0a33d89cb9f7da4588 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Mike Rapoport > > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:29:27 +0300 > > Subject: [PATCH] of/fdt: fixup #ifdefs after removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK config > > option > > > > The removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option, mistakenly dropped the > > wrong #endif. This patch restores that #endif and removes the part that > > should have been actually removed, starting from #else and up to the > > correct #endif > > > > Reported-by: Jonathan Cameron > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > > Hi Mike, > > That's identical to the local patch I'm carrying to fix this so looks good to me. > > For what it's worth given you'll probably fold this into the larger patch. > > Tested-by: Jonathan Cameron Well, this is up to Andrew now, as the broken patch is already in the -mm tree. > Thanks for the quick reply. > > Jonathan > > > --- > > drivers/of/fdt.c | 21 +-------------------- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c > > index 48314e9..bb532aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c > > @@ -1119,6 +1119,7 @@ int __init early_init_dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname, > > #endif > > #ifndef MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR > > #define MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR ((phys_addr_t)~0) > > +#endif > > > > void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) > > { > > @@ -1175,26 +1176,6 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base, > > return memblock_reserve(base, size); > > } > > > > -#else > > -void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) > > -{ > > - WARN_ON(1); > > -} > > - > > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_mark_hotplug_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) > > -{ > > - return -ENOSYS; > > -} > > - > > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base, > > - phys_addr_t size, bool nomap) > > -{ > > - pr_err("Reserved memory not supported, ignoring range %pa - %pa%s\n", > > - &base, &size, nomap ? " (nomap)" : ""); > > - return -ENOSYS; > > -} > > -#endif > > - > > static void * __init early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch(u64 size, u64 align) > > { > > return memblock_alloc(size, align); > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.