On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:39:41AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On October 15, 2019 2:46:59 AM GMT+02:00, Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:02:26AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >> From: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> > >> > >> arm64 calls memblock_free() for the initrd area in its implementation > >of > >> free_initrd_mem(), but this call has no actual effect that late in > >the boot > >> process. By the time initrd is freed, all the reserved memory is > >managed by > >> the page allocator and the memblock.reserved is unused, so the only > >purpose > >> of the memblock_free() call is to keep track of initrd memory for > >debugging > >> and accounting. > >> > >> Without the memblock_free() call the only difference between arm64 > >and the > >> generic versions of free_initrd_mem() is the memory poisoning. > >> > >> Move memblock_free() call to the generic code, enable it there > >> for the architectures that define ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK and use the > >generic > >> implementation of free_initrd_mem() on arm64. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> > >> --- > >> > >> v4: > >> * memblock_free() aligned area around the initrd > > > >Looks straightforward to me: > > > >Acked-by: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> > > Can it go via arm64 tree?
Yes, I was hoping Catalin would pick it up for 5.5. Will