[PATCH v4 14/16] powerpc: Use generic free_initrd_mem.

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c
index fe8c61149fb8..e85b2a3cd264 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c

@@ -404,13 +404,6 @@ void free_initmem(void)
 	free_initmem_default(POISON_FREE_INITMEM);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
-void __init free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
-{
-	free_reserved_area((void *)start, (void *)end, -1, "initrd");
-}
-#endif
-
 /*
  * This is called when a page has been modified by the kernel.
  * It just marks the page as not i-cache clean.  We do the i-cache

-- 
2.16.2

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote:

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <redacted>

Most people seem to want some form of commit message
and not just your sign-off.

And btw:

It seems you used get_maintainer to determine who to
send these patches to.

I suggest you add --nogit and --nogit-fallback to the
get_maintainer command line you use to avoid sending
these patches to people like me that have done drive-by
cleanup work on these files.

Joe Perches [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <redacted>

Most people seem to want some form of commit message
and not just your sign-off.

Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail.

And btw:

It seems you used get_maintainer to determine who to
send these patches to.

I suggest you add --nogit and --nogit-fallback to the
get_maintainer command line you use to avoid sending
these patches to people like me that have done drive-by
cleanup work on these files.

Whoops, thanks for the tip and sorry for the noise!

Shea Levy [off-list ref] writes:

Joe Perches [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <redacted>

Most people seem to want some form of commit message
and not just your sign-off.

Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail.

Yeah please do.

Seeing this patch in isolation, with no change log, I might think it's
safe for me to just apply it.

But that would break the build because I don't have patch 1.

So for starters you need to explain that part, eg something like:

  A previous patch in the series added a weak definition of
  free_initrd_mem() in init/initramfs.c.

  The powerpc implementation is identical, so it can be removed allowing
  the generic version to be used.


Then you could also tell me if you did/didn't build/boot test it.

cheers

Hi Michael,

Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] writes:

Shea Levy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Joe Perches [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <redacted>

Most people seem to want some form of commit message
and not just your sign-off.

Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail.

Yeah please do.

Seeing this patch in isolation, with no change log, I might think it's
safe for me to just apply it.

But that would break the build because I don't have patch 1.

So for starters you need to explain that part, eg something like:

  A previous patch in the series added a weak definition of
  free_initrd_mem() in init/initramfs.c.

  The powerpc implementation is identical, so it can be removed allowing
  the generic version to be used.


Then you could also tell me if you did/didn't build/boot test it.

Thanks for the feedback, can you let me know if the recently posted v6
fits the bill?

cheers

Thanks,
Shea