linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/35] x86,lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area/lmb_free

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4BECEE23.3080904@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 May 2010 23:30:59 -0700
From:	Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/35] x86,lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area/lmb_free_area

On 05/13/2010 07:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:19 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> 
>>  #endif
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/lmb.c b/arch/x86/mm/lmb.c
>> index 37a05e2..0dbe05b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/lmb.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/lmb.c
>> @@ -117,3 +117,30 @@ void __init lmb_to_bootmem(u64 start, u64 end)
>>  	lmb.reserved.cnt = 0;
>>  }
>>  #endif
>> +
>> +void __init lmb_add_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
>> +{
>> +	lmb_add_region(&lmb.memory, start, end - start);
>> +}
> 
> I completely fail the point of doing such a minor argument conversion
> as an exported function, with a naming that would cause certain
> confusion with the existing lmb_add().
> 
> In any case, the above should be done at the call sites. Just call
> lmb_add(start, end-start). You also aren't consistent since you do the
> similar conversion using the _area suffix below, but not above.
> 
>> +void __init lmb_reserve_area(u64 start, u64 end, char *name)
>> +{
>> +	if (start == end)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	if (WARN_ONCE(start > end, "lmb_reserve_area: wrong range [%#llx, %#llx]\n", start, end))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	lmb_add_region(&lmb.reserved, start, end - start);
>> +}
> 
> You seem to be fond of gratuituous bloat... 
> 
>> +void __init lmb_free_area(u64 start, u64 end)
>> +{
>> +	if (start == end)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	if (WARN_ONCE(start > end, "lmb_free_area: wrong range [%#llx, %#llx]\n", start, end))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	lmb_free(start, end - start);
>> +}
> 
> And here again.
> 
> If you -really- think there's value in the prototype conversions, then
> make those _area() variants static inlines, group the well together in
> the .h with a clear explanation saying something like "it's more
> practical for some arch to use start/end rather than start/size".
> 
> I personally don't see why you are doing that tho.

make the rebase more easy.

previous version is using those api.

also will add some debug print out with them
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/