2014-08-28 5:53 GMT+09:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:56:02 +0900 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Replace memblock_find_in_range() and memblock_reserve() with >> memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base(). > > Please spend a little more time preparing the changelogs? OK, I'll be careful next time. > Why are we making this change? Because memblock_alloc_range() is > equivalent to memblock_find_in_range()+memblock_reserve() and it's just > a cleanup? Or is there some deeper functional reason? This is just a cleanup and I thought there are no functional change. But I've just realized that the conversion to memblock_alloc_base() in this patch changes the behaviour in the error case. Because memblock_alloc_base calls panic if it can't allocate. So please drop this patch from -mm tree for now. > Does memblock_find_in_range() need to exist? Can we convert all > callers to memblock_alloc_range()? There are two callsites where we can't simply convert with memblock_alloc_range (arch/s390/kernel/setup.c, arch/x86/mm/init.c). -- 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>