Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108932-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 21:14:00 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
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: <ZfrhGANU2gxE5+9c@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20240318142138.783350-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20240318142138.783350-3-bhe@redhat.com>
 <Zfmz_1sbbvSWMj9C@kernel.org>
 <ZfqV1IEo3+cf9f9I@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZfquM06LOZB4vddu@kernel.org>

On 03/20/24 at 11:36am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> 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.

OK, firslty remove the only user, that sounds reasonable. Will change.
Thanks.