On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 02:21:26PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> This is preparation for supporting mem=limit@base and memmap=limit@base
> parameters, no functionality change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
NAK.
We already have enough memory capping interfaces in memblock, we don't need
yet another one.
> ---
> include/linux/memblock.h | 1 +
> mm/memblock.c | 9 +++++++--
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 50ad196..e558d2c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void);
> void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit);
> void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit);
> +void memblock_mem_range_remove_map(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t limit);
> bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> bool memblock_is_map_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> bool memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 1018e50..2476d15d 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ void __init memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> base + size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX);
> }
>
> -void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit)
> +void __init memblock_mem_range_remove_map(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t limit)
> {
> phys_addr_t max_addr;
>
> @@ -1736,7 +1736,12 @@ void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit)
> if (max_addr == PHYS_ADDR_MAX)
> return;
>
> - memblock_cap_memory_range(0, max_addr);
> + memblock_cap_memory_range(base, max_addr);
> +}
> +
> +void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit)
> +{
> + memblock_mem_range_remove_map(0, limit);
> }
>
> static int __init_memblock memblock_search(struct memblock_type *type, phys_addr_t addr)
> --
> 2.1.0
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
