[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180419100745.GC3896@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:07:45 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:18:47AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
>
> It will be used in kexec_file code.
Of course, what is missing is the big *WHY* you need this to happen this
way...
> /*
> + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> + * higher to lower.
> + */
> +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> + int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct resource *res;
> + int ret = -1;
> +
> + flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> +
> + read_lock(&resource_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry_reverse(res, &iomem_resource.child, sibling) {
... and the other thing that I'm not clear on is why are you
slapping this function just like that instead of extending
__walk_iomem_res_desc() to do reverse direction too?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists