On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:24:09PM +0900, Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > 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.
In reality it's very unlikely for memblock_reserve() to fail, especially after resize is allowed. And if it does fail, the system would trip on a memory error, usually sooner than later. > Would you still prefer to keep these checks? If so, I'm fine with > dropping this patch series. It's not a big deal :) Let's keep the checks as they are now. > Best Regards, > Sang-Heon Jeon -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
