On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:06:43PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:18:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > "physmem" in the memblock allocator is somewhat weird: it's not actually > > used for allocation, it's simply information collected during boot, which > > describes the unmodified physical memory map at boot time, without any > > standby/hotplugged memory. It's only used on s390x and is currently the > > only reason s390x keeps using CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. > > > > Physmem isn't numa aware and current users don't specify any flags. Let's > > hide it from the user, exposing only for_each_physmem(), and simplify. The > > interface for physmem is now really minimalistic: > > - memblock_physmem_add() to add ranges > > - for_each_physmem() / __next_physmem_range() to walk physmem ranges > > > > Don't place it into an __init section and don't discard it without > > CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. As we're reusing __next_mem_range(), remove > > the __meminit notifier to avoid section mismatch warnings once > > CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK is no longer used with > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP. > > > > While fixing up the documentation, sneak in some related cleanups. We can > > stop setting CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP for s390x next. > > As you noted in the previous version it should have been > CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK ;-) > > > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> > > Cc: Vasily Gorbik <g...@linux.ibm.com> > > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > > Cc: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> > > > --- > > arch/s390/kernel/crash_dump.c | 6 ++-- > > include/linux/memblock.h | 28 ++++++++++++++--- > > mm/memblock.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
So I guess this should go via the s390 tree, since the second patch of this series can go only upstream if both this patch and a patch which is currently only on our features are merged before. Any objections?
