Hi Mike, On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 3:17 PM Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sang-Heon, > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 01:37:48AM +0900, Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > > memblock_reserve() can only return an error after memblock_allow_resize() > > has been called. Before that it either succeeds or panics, never returning > > an error. > > > > Before memblock_allow_resize() is called, the return value checks of > > memblock_reserve() are unreachable and can be removed. > > I'd rather keep these checks. > > Removing them relies on internal details of memblock_reserve() implementation > and the existing event sequence. If the code would move around relying on > panic in memblock_reserve() may not be correct. > > And the few bytes and cycles the change saves do not worth the churn.
Makes sense to me. But most early boot callers of memblock_reserve() don't check the return value, so I thought we already rely on its internal behavior anyway. So the few remaining checks just looked a bit inconsistent to me. Would you still prefer to keep these checks? If so, I'm fine with dropping this patch series. It's not a big deal :) Thank you for taking the time to review this series. > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. Best Regards, Sang-Heon Jeon
