Skip to contentSkip to conversation

x86: Remove dma32_reserve_bootmem

PATCH In review Yinghai Lu 2 participants 8 messages Mar 28, 2011 – Apr 12, 2011 x86

lore
Share & tools
lore

Yinghai Lu

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 x86: Remove dma32_reserve_bootmem

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h |    2 -
 arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c  |   64 ---------------------------------------------
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c    |    1
 3 files changed, 67 deletions(-)
arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h +0 -2
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
===================================================================
@@ -135,8 +135,6 @@ void default_teardown_msi_irqs(struct pc
 #include "pci_64.h"
 #endif
 
-void dma32_reserve_bootmem(void);
-
 /* implement the pci_ DMA API in terms of the generic device dma_ one */
 #include <asm-generic/pci-dma-compat.h>
 
arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c +0 -64

74 lines not on this page · raw message

arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +0 -1
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
@@ -988,7 +988,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 
 	initmem_init();
 	memblock_find_dma_reserve();
-	dma32_reserve_bootmem();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK
 	kvmclock_init();
#1 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:56:53 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

Looks like a nice cleanup, can you re-send based on my linux-next branch?

Thanks,

Signature · 1 line
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
author
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 x86: Remove dma32_reserve_bootmem

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

-v2: rebase on pci-next

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h |    2 -
 arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c  |   64 ---------------------------------------------
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c    |    1
 3 files changed, 67 deletions(-)
arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h +0 -2
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
===================================================================
@@ -135,8 +135,6 @@ void default_teardown_msi_irqs(struct pc
 #include "pci_64.h"
 #endif
 
-void dma32_reserve_bootmem(void);
-
 /* implement the pci_ DMA API in terms of the generic device dma_ one */
 #include <asm-generic/pci-dma-compat.h>
 
arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c +0 -64

74 lines not on this page · raw message

arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +0 -1
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
@@ -966,7 +966,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 
 	initmem_init();
 	memblock_find_dma_reserve();
-	dma32_reserve_bootmem();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK
 	kvmclock_init();
#3 lore raw
Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Quoted 8 lines

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

-v2: rebase on pci-next

Hm, still didn't apply cleanly, I guess the patch got corrupted. I fixed it up by hand and applied to linux-next though, thanks.

Signature · 1 line
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
author
#4 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 8 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu<[email protected]> wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines

-v2: rebase on pci-next

Hm, still didn't apply cleanly, I guess the patch got corrupted. I fixed it up by hand and applied to linux-next though, thanks.

sorry for that. looks like recent thunderbird upgrade convert TAB to space..

Thanks

Yinghai Lu

#5 lore raw
Quoted 14 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:54:14 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 13 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 10 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu<[email protected]> wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

-v2: rebase on pci-next

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines

Hm, still didn't apply cleanly, I guess the patch got corrupted. I fixed it up by hand and applied to linux-next though, thanks.

sorry for that. looks like recent thunderbird upgrade convert TAB to space..

Thanks for checking. I wonder why every mailer (and some MTAs!) feel the need to molest message content so thoroughly...

Signature · 1 line
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
author
#6 lore raw
Quoted 20 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 17 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:54:14 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 16 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 12 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu<[email protected]>  wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

-v2: rebase on pci-next

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines

Hm, still didn't apply cleanly, I guess the patch got corrupted.  I fixed it up by hand and applied to linux-next though, thanks.

sorry for that. looks like recent thunderbird upgrade convert TAB to space..

Thanks for checking.  I wonder why every mailer (and some MTAs!) feel the need to molest message content so thoroughly...

looks like patchwork and LKML have tab instead of spaces.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/701342/

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/12/358

also it is very interesting: in thunderbox inbox/send box, some mails are viewed with TAB as spaces.
but source does have TAB.

Yinghai

Yinghai

author
#7 lore raw
Quoted 32 lines · Yinghai Lu
Quoted 20 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 17 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:54:14 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 16 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 12 lines · On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu<[email protected]>  wrote:

That is workaround for holding dma32 buf when early bootmem could use up those range on system that have lots of RAM.

Now x86 is using memblock, and even nobootmem wrapper do top-down allocation.

So We could remove those not needed code now.

-v2: rebase on pci-next

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines

Hm, still didn't apply cleanly, I guess the patch got corrupted.  I fixed it up by hand and applied to linux-next though, thanks.

sorry for that. looks like recent thunderbird upgrade convert TAB to space..

Thanks for checking.  I wonder why every mailer (and some MTAs!) feel the need to molest message content so thoroughly...

looks like patchwork and LKML have tab instead of spaces.

Quoted 8 lines

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/701342/

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/12/358

also it is very interesting: in thunderbox inbox/send box, some mails are viewed with TAB as spaces.
but source does have TAB.

while using thunderbird 3.1.8 to send patch, need to set

mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed

to false.

otherwise viewer could show TAB as spaces.

Yinghai