On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's *particularly* true when the very line above it did a
> > "memblock_reserve()" of the exact same range that the memblock_add()
> > "adds".
>
> The most correct thing to do would have been to
>
> memblock_add(0, end_of_first_memory_bank);
>
> Somewhere at e820__memblock_setup().
You miss my complaint.
Why does the memblock code care about this magical "memblock_add()",
when we just told it that the SAME REGION is reserved by doing a
"memblock_reserve()"?
IOW, I'm not interested in "the correct thing to do would have been
[another memblock_add()]". I'm saying that the memblock code itself is
being confused, and no additional thing should have been required at
all, because we already *did* that memblock_reserve().
See?
Honestly, I'm not seeing it being a good thing to move further towards
memblock code as the primary model for memory initialization, when the
memblock code is so confused.
Linus
