From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA736B0035 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id rd3so1273903pab.12 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v11si2382875pas.205.2014.08.27.13.53.49 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:53:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: use memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base() Message-Id: <20140827135348.9c9ccefebccc74083f7ba922@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1408892163-8073-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> References: <1408892163-8073-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Akinobu Mita Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:56:02 +0900 Akinobu Mita wrote: > Replace memblock_find_in_range() and memblock_reserve() with > memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base(). Please spend a little more time preparing the changelogs? Why are we making this change? Because memblock_alloc_range() is equivalent to memblock_find_in_range()+memblock_reserve() and it's just a cleanup? Or is there some deeper functional reason? Does memblock_find_in_range() need to exist? Can we convert all callers to memblock_alloc_range()? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org