"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Please find the v2 of cma related powerpc fadump fixes. > > Patch-1 is a change in mm/cma.c to make sure we return an error if someone uses > cma_init_reserved_mem() before the pageblock_order is initalized. > > I guess, it's best if Patch-1 goes via mm tree and since rest of the changes > are powerpc fadump fixes hence those should go via powerpc tree. Right? Yes I think that will work. Because there's no actual dependency on patch 1, correct? Let's see if the mm folks are happy with the approach, and if so you should send patch 1 on its own, and patches 2-4 as a separate series. Then I can take the series (2-4) as fixes, and patch 1 can go via the mm tree (probably in next, not as a fix). cheers > v1 -> v2: > ========= > 1. Review comments from David to call fadump_cma_init() after the > pageblock_order is initialized. Also to catch usages if someone tries > to call cma_init_reserved_mem() before pageblock_order is initialized. > > [v1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/c1e66d3e69c8d90988c02b84c79db5d9dd93f053.1728386179.git.ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Ritesh Harjani (IBM) (4): > cma: Enforce non-zero pageblock_order during cma_init_reserved_mem() > fadump: Refactor and prepare fadump_cma_init for late init > fadump: Reserve page-aligned boot_memory_size during fadump_reserve_mem > fadump: Move fadump_cma_init to setup_arch() after initmem_init() > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/fadump.h | 7 ++++ > arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c | 55 +++++++++++++++--------------- > arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c | 6 ++-- > mm/cma.c | 9 +++++ > 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.46.0
