linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Oct 2012 04:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To:	<Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	<konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct

Hi,

> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:36 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It would have been a good idea to CC the maintainer of those files
> directly with at least this patch if not the whole series.

Thanks. I spotted later that maintainers are not in CC.
I am going to prepare next version of patches with
minor suggested fixes and repost them once again
for review next week.

> If they don't like this approach then there not much point in doing a
> thorough reviewing of the other 10 patches I don't think, since I would
> expect they will be required to change pretty substantially under those
> circumstances.

Sure.

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/