> Hmm, I assume these are some decisions that x86 platform will have to > make going forward in a subsequent patch as the third patch does for > the arm64 platform. But it is clearly beyond the scope of this patch > which never intended to change existing behavior on a given platform. > Yeah, I would be curious if my assumption is correct. >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> -pte_t * __meminit vmemmap_pte_populate(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, int node) >>> +pte_t * __meminit vmemmap_pte_populate(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, int node, >>> + struct vmem_altmap *altmap) >>> { >>> pte_t *pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr); >>> if (pte_none(*pte)) { >>> pte_t entry; >>> - void *p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PAGE_SIZE, node); >>> + void *p; >>> + >>> + if (altmap) >>> + p = altmap_alloc_block_buf(PAGE_SIZE, altmap); >>> + else >>> + p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PAGE_SIZE, node); >>> if (!p) >>> return NULL; >> >> I was wondering if >> >> if (altmap) >> p = altmap_alloc_block_buf(PAGE_SIZE, altmap); >> if (!p) >> p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PAGE_SIZE, node); >> if (!p) >> return NULL >> >> Would make sense. But I guess this isn't really relevant in practice, >> because the altmap is usually sized properly. >> >> In general, LGTM. > > Okay, I assume that no further changes are required here. > Jep, Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb