linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 02/12] xen/hvmlite: Factor out common kernel init code

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: <56A2BAE3.50008@oracle.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:27:31 -0500
From:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc:	david.vrabel@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	roger.pau@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/12] xen/hvmlite: Factor out common kernel init code

On 01/22/2016 06:12 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 06:01 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:35:48PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> HVMlite guests (to be introduced in subsequent patches) share most
>>> of the kernel initialization code with PV(H).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c |  225 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>   1 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>> index d09e4c9..2cf446a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>> Whoa, I'm lost, its hard for me to tell what exactly stayed and what
>> got pulled into a helper, etc. Is there a possibility to split this
>> patch in 2 somehow to make the actual functional changes easier to
>> read? There are too many changes here and I just can't tell easily
>> what's going on.
>
>
> The only real changes that this patch introduces is it reorders some 
> of the operations that used to be in xen_start_kernel(). This is done 
> so that in the next patch when we add hvmlite we can easily put those 
> specific to PV(H) inside 'if (!xen_hvm_domain())'. I probably should 
> have said so in the commit message.


Actually, I forgot that I merged the 'if' clause into this patch already 
so I'll see if I can separate them again to make it easier on the eye.

-boris


>
> It is indeed difficult to review but I don't see how I can split this. 
> Even if I just moved it (without reordering) it would still be hard to 
> read.
>
> -boris