From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B886B0003 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 06:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id f6-v6so1200283eds.6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 19-v6si2075246edu.414.2018.06.27.03.40.45 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:40:44 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? Message-ID: <20180627104044.GJ32348@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring , linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. Cool! > That leaves m68k and ia64 I will not get to those anytime soon (say a week or two) but I have that close on top of my todo list. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs