On Fri 11-08-17 11:58:46, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > >>A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: > >>memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() > >> - Does not zero the allocated memory > >> - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied > > > >OK, this looks good but I would not introduce memblock_virt_alloc_raw > >here because we do not have any users. Please move that to "mm: optimize > >early system hash allocations" which actually uses the API. It would be > >easier to review it that way. > > > >>Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>Reviewed-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >other than that > >Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's > comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in > one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch > set. Is this assumption incorrect? Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others feel otherwise I will not object. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
