Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch set. Is this assumption incorrect? Well, it really depends. If the patch

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch set. Is this assumption incorrect? Well, it really depends. If the patch

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 11-08-17 11:58:46, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > >>A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: > >>memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() > >> - Does not zero the allocated memory > >> -

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 11-08-17 11:58:46, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > >>A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: > >>memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() > >> - Does not zero the allocated memory > >> -

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() - Does not zero the allocated memory - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied OK, this looks good

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() - Does not zero the allocated memory - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied OK, this looks good

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: > memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() > - Does not zero the allocated memory > - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied OK, this looks good but I would not introduce

Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: > memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() > - Does not zero the allocated memory > - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied OK, this looks good but I would not introduce

[v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-07 Thread Pavel Tatashin
A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() - Does not zero the allocated memory - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare

[v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

2017-08-07 Thread Pavel Tatashin
A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations: memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw() - Does not zero the allocated memory - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan Reviewed-by: Bob Picco ---