linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec

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: <20121001113046.GA2942@host-192-168-1-59.local.net-space.pl>
Date:	Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:36:43 +0200
From:	Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.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 Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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:

I do not like this patch, too. However, this is the simplest
solution. If you do not do that in that way then you must
duplicate most of kernel/kexec.c functionality in architecture
depndent files.

> > @@ -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);

I have done that in that way because during my work on memory hotplug
Andrew Morton aligned my patches to that syntax. However,
I do not insist on staying with it.

Daniel
--
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/