[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5065729C020000780009E63B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:49:16 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Daniel Kiper" <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
Cc: <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, "xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
<konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct
>>> On 27.09.12 at 20:06, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
> Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) on different archs could
> not use default functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump
> generic code. To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was introduced.
> It allows a developer to replace all or some functions and control some
> functionality of kexec/kdump generic code.
I'm not convinced that doing this at the architecture independent
layer is really necessary/desirable. Nevertheless, if that's the right
place, then everything else looks good to me, except for a
cosmetic thing:
> @@ -392,7 +435,7 @@ static void kimage_free_page_list(struct list_head *list)
>
> page = list_entry(pos, struct page, lru);
> list_del(&page->lru);
> - kimage_free_pages(page);
> + (*kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages)(page);
These constructs are generally better readable without the
explicit yet redundant indirection:
kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages(page);
Jan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists