[0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation

Message

Mike Rapoport Feb. 14, 2019, 3:59 p.m. UTC

Hi,

Many architectures implement free_initmem() in exactly the same or very
similar way: they wrap the call to free_initmem_default() with sometimes
different 'poison' parameter.

These patches switch those architectures to use a generic implementation
that does free_initmem_default(POISON_FREE_INITMEM).

This was inspired by Christoph's patches for free_initrd_mem [1] and I
shamelessly copied changlog entries from his patches :)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/

Mike Rapoport (4):
  init: provide a generic free_initmem implementation
  hexagon: switch over to generic free_initmem()
  init: free_initmem: poison freed init memory
  riscv: switch over to generic free_initmem()

 arch/alpha/mm/init.c      |  6 ------
 arch/arc/mm/init.c        |  8 --------
 arch/c6x/mm/init.c        |  5 -----
 arch/h8300/mm/init.c      |  6 ------
 arch/hexagon/mm/init.c    | 10 ----------
 arch/microblaze/mm/init.c |  5 -----
 arch/nds32/mm/init.c      |  5 -----
 arch/nios2/mm/init.c      |  5 -----
 arch/openrisc/mm/init.c   |  5 -----
 arch/riscv/mm/init.c      |  5 -----
 arch/sh/mm/init.c         |  5 -----
 arch/sparc/mm/init_32.c   |  5 -----
 arch/unicore32/mm/init.c  |  5 -----
 arch/xtensa/mm/init.c     |  5 -----
 init/main.c               |  5 +++++
 15 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig Feb. 14, 2019, 5:04 p.m. UTC | #1

This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will
just create conflicts with my series..

Mike Rapoport Feb. 14, 2019, 6:38 p.m. UTC | #2

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will
> just create conflicts with my series..

I'll rebase on top of your patches once they are in. Or I can send both
series as a single set.
Preferences?

Christoph Hellwig Feb. 18, 2019, 9:49 a.m. UTC | #3

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:38:55PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will
> > just create conflicts with my series..
> 
> I'll rebase on top of your patches once they are in. Or I can send both
> series as a single set.
> Preferences? 

So far there wasn't really much a reason to rebase my series, hope
this gets picked up either by Andrew or Al (not sure what the right
place is).  I think for now just rebase your series on top, we can
then figure out how to proceed.