On 01.07.20 17:31, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:06:43PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:18:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> "physmem" in the memblock allocator is somewhat weird: it's not actually >>> used for allocation, it's simply information collected during boot, which >>> describes the unmodified physical memory map at boot time, without any >>> standby/hotplugged memory. It's only used on s390x and is currently the >>> only reason s390x keeps using CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. >>> >>> Physmem isn't numa aware and current users don't specify any flags. Let's >>> hide it from the user, exposing only for_each_physmem(), and simplify. The >>> interface for physmem is now really minimalistic: >>> - memblock_physmem_add() to add ranges >>> - for_each_physmem() / __next_physmem_range() to walk physmem ranges >>> >>> Don't place it into an __init section and don't discard it without >>> CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. As we're reusing __next_mem_range(), remove >>> the __meminit notifier to avoid section mismatch warnings once >>> CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK is no longer used with >>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP. >>> >>> While fixing up the documentation, sneak in some related cleanups. We can >>> stop setting CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP for s390x next. >> >> As you noted in the previous version it should have been >> CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK ;-) >> >>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> --- >>> arch/s390/kernel/crash_dump.c | 6 ++-- >>> include/linux/memblock.h | 28 ++++++++++++++--- >>> mm/memblock.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > So I guess this should go via the s390 tree, since the second patch of > this series can go only upstream if both this patch and a patch which > is currently only on our features are merged before. > > Any objections? @Andrew, fine with you if this goes via the s390 tree? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
