[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160630154119.GB3058@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:41:19 -0400
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vgoyal@...hat.com,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from
kexec_add_buffer.
On 06/29/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:45:18 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a
> > > > separate
> > > > argument for memory walk..
> > >
> > > I agree. This patch doesn't use a separate top_down argument, it's the
> > > same patch I sent earlier except that the comments to struct kexec_buf
> > > are in patch 2/9. What do you think?
> >
> > It looks good except one nitpick inline..
> >
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use in
> > > purgatory
>
> > It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..
>
> Ok, what about this?
>
> /**
> * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory in a given kimage.
Hmm, a given kimage sounds not correct, I can not get a better way to
describe it. How about below with a little change to your previous one:
kexec_locate_mem_hole - find a free chunk of memory to load kexec segment.
In powerpc the memory chunk can also be used for the purgatory stack.
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists