Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108699-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:36:51 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: remove memblock_find_dma_reserve()
Message-ID: <ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org>
References: <20240318142138.783350-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20240318142138.783350-3-bhe@redhat.com>
 <Zfmz_1sbbvSWMj9C@kernel.org>
 <ZfqV1IEo3+cf9f9I@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZfqV1IEo3+cf9f9I@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:52:52PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/19/24 at 05:49pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi Baoquan,
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:21:34PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > This is not needed any more.
> > 
> > I'd swap this and the first patch, so that the first patch would remove
> > memblock_find_dma_reserve() and it's changelog will explain why it's not
> > needed and then the second patch will simply drop unused set_dma_reserve()
> 
> Thanks, Mike.
> 
> My thought on the patch 1/2 splitting is:
> patch 1 is removing all relevant codes in mm, including the usage of
> dma_reserve in free_area_init_core() and exporting set_dma_reserve()
> to any ARCH which want to subtract the dma_reserve from DMA zone.
>
> Patch 2 purely remove the code in x86 ARCH about how to get dma_reserve.
 
I think it's better first to remove the usage of set_dma_reserve() in x86
and then clean up the unused code.

> Your suggestion is also good to me, I can rearrange the order and
> repost.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.