Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 16:54 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the memblock tree got a conflict in:
>
> mm/memblock.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e0eec24e2e199 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES")
>
> from the origin tree and commit:
>
> 94ff46de4a738 ("memblock: Move late alloc warning down to phys alloc")
>
> from the memblock tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc mm/memblock.c
> index e81fb68f7f888,692dc551c0fde..0000000000000
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@@ -1441,6 -1446,20 +1439,9 @@@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range
> enum memblock_flags flags = choose_memblock_flags();
> phys_addr_t found;
>
> + if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
> + nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +
> - /*
> - * Detect any accidental use of these APIs after slab is ready, as at
> - * this moment memblock may be deinitialized already and its
> - * internal data may be destroyed (after execution of memblock_free_all)
> - */
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) {
> - void *vaddr = kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, nid);
> -
> - return vaddr ? virt_to_phys(vaddr) : 0;
> - }
> -
This looks like you're deleting the check from the
memblock_alloc_range()? The intention of
commit 94ff46de4a738 ("memblock: Move late alloc warning down to phys alloc")
was to *add* this check here.
Do you have a link where I can see the final repo?
I'm not seeing it here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/mm/memblock.c
JG
> if (!align) {
> /* Can't use WARNs this early in boot on powerpc */
> dump_stack();
