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:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:52:35 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips: sgi-ip27: switch from DISCONTIGMEM to SPARSEMEM
Message-ID: <20190916095233.GB5196@rapoport-lnx>
References: <20190905233800.0f6b3fb3722cde2f5a88663a@suse.de>
 <20190906130223.GA17704@rapoport-lnx>
 <20190909182242.c1ef9717d14b20212ef75954@suse.de>
 <20190910113243.GA19207@rapoport-lnx>
 <20190911160939.19f776535770d12ff51a2af7@suse.de>
 <20190912105831.GA10677@rapoport-lnx>
 <20190912155539.6151b0811e858455be4c8d86@suse.de>
 <20190912140912.GA13137@alpha.franken.de>
 <20190914104112.GA12045@rapoport-lnx>
 <20190916090705.GA5119@alpha.franken.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190916090705.GA5119@alpha.franken.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:41:13AM +0100, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:09:12PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:55:39PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > > - reserved[0xd]	[0x000000035bff8000-0x000000035bffffff], 0x0000000000008000 bytes flags: 0x0
> > > > 
> > > > I have no idea which reservation this is, but it's not from one of the
> > > > node data.
> > > 
> > > that's sparsemem's mem_section. And 
> > > 
> > >  free_bootmem_with_active_regions(node, end_pfn);
> > 
> > It seems that the call to free_bootmem_with_active_regions() should have
> > been removed along with bootmem and it's not needed now.
> > 
> > Can you please test the below version of the patch?
> 
> Patch is good. I've compared bootlogs and output is the same
> regarding memblock/memory debug messages.

Can I add your co-developed+signed-off then?
 
> When this is merged, I'll have a look into using memblock_alloc
> for the node memory.
> 
> Thomas.
> 
> -- 
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.