[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180223092459.GC4433@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:24:59 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
vgoyal@...hat.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
bhe@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
julien.thierry@....com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/13] kexec_file,x86,powerpc: factor out
kexec_file_ops functions
Hi AKASHI,
On 02/22/18 at 08:17pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> As arch_kexec_kernel_*_{probe,load}(), arch_kimage_file_post_load_cleanup()
> and arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sg can be parameterized with a kexec_file_ops
> array and now duplicated among some architectures, let's factor them out.
>
> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
> Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
> Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kexec.h | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/kernel/kexec_elf_64.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_file_64.c | 39 ++------------------
> arch/x86/include/asm/kexec-bzimage64.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c | 45 +----------------------
> include/linux/kexec.h | 15 ++++----
> kernel/kexec_file.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 8 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
>
[snip]
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_file.c b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> index 990adae52151..a6d14a768b3e 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> @@ -26,34 +26,83 @@
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> #include "kexec_internal.h"
>
> +const __weak struct kexec_file_ops * const kexec_file_loaders[] = {NULL};
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_PURGATORY
> static int kexec_calculate_store_digests(struct kimage *image);
> #else
> static int kexec_calculate_store_digests(struct kimage *image) { return 0; };
> #endif
>
> +int _kexec_kernel_image_probe(struct kimage *image, void *buf,
> + unsigned long buf_len)
> +{
> + const struct kexec_file_ops * const *fops;
> + int ret = -ENOEXEC;
> +
> + for (fops = &kexec_file_loaders[0]; *fops && (*fops)->probe; ++fops) {
> + ret = (*fops)->probe(buf, buf_len);
> + if (!ret) {
> + image->fops = *fops;
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /* Architectures can provide this probe function */
> int __weak arch_kexec_kernel_image_probe(struct kimage *image, void *buf,
> unsigned long buf_len)
> {
> - return -ENOEXEC;
> + return _kexec_kernel_image_probe(image, buf, buf_len);
I vaguely remember previously I suggest split the _kexec_kernel_image_probe
because arch code can call them, and common code also use it like above.
But in your new series I do not find where else calls this function
except the common code arch_kexec_kernel_image_probe. If nobody use
them then it is not worth to split them out, it is better to just embed
them in the __weak functions.
Ditto for other similar functions.
[snip]
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists