On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:34:19AM +0800, 王文涛 wrote:

Yes, Mike's follow up fix should be picked too with this change.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:11 PM Mike Rapoport rppt@linux.ibm.com wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:50:43PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:

...

Hi! On Tue 2019-12-03 23:34:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

...

From: Wentao Wang witallwang@gmail.com

[ Upstream commit d31cfe7bff9109476da92c245b56083e9b48d60a ]

...

@@ -1537,12 +1537,7 @@ void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid( */ void __init __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) {

• phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
• memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pF\n",

•            __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
  

• kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size);
• memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size);

• memblock_free(base, size);

}

This makes the memblock_dbg() less useful: _RET_IP_ will now be one of __memblock_free_early(), not of the original caller.

That may be okay, but I guess it should be mentioned in changelog, and I don't really see why it is queued for -stable.

Not sure why this one was picked for -stable, but in upstream there is a followup commit 4d72868c8f7c ("memblock: replace usage of __memblock_free_early() with memblock_free()") that completely eliminates __memblock_free_early(). IMHO it would make sense to either to take both or to drop both.

This commit does not apply to the 4.19.y tree :(