[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51956FF6.3070205@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:47:02 +0900
From: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: riel@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lisa.mitchell@...com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kumagai-atsushi@....nes.nec.co.jp,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
walken@...gle.com, cpw@....com, jingbai.ma@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] vmcore: allocate ELF note segment in the 2nd kernel
vmalloc memory
(2013/05/17 5:32), Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:06:14PM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> +static int __init get_note_number_and_size_elf32(const Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr_ptr,
>> + int *nr_ptnote, u64 *phdr_sz)
>> +{
>> + return process_note_headers_elf32(ehdr_ptr, nr_ptnote, phdr_sz, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int __init copy_notes_elf32(const Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr_ptr, char *notes_buf)
>> +{
>> + return process_note_headers_elf32(ehdr_ptr, NULL, NULL, notes_buf);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Please don't do this. We need to create two separate functions doing
> two different operations and not just create wrapper around a function
> which does two things.
>
> I know both functions will have similar for loops for going through
> the elf notes but it is better then doing function overloading based
> on parameters passed.
>
I see. This part must be fixed in the next version.
--
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke
--
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