[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7981ae61-26c6-000c-9ee4-382dab3eecab@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:26:23 +0530
From: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc: Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>,
Kexec-ml <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] kexec_file: allow archs to handle special regions
while locating memory hole
Hi Petr,
On 29/06/20 5:09 pm, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Hi Hari,
>
> is there any good reason to add two more functions with a very similar
> name to an existing function? AFAICS all you need is a way to call a
> PPC64-specific function from within kexec_add_buffer (PATCH 4/11), so
> you could add something like this:
>
> int __weak arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> Call this function from kexec_add_buffer where appropriate and then
> override it for PPC64 (it roughly corresponds to your
> kexec_locate_mem_hole_ppc64() from PATCH 4/11).
>
> FWIW it would make it easier for me to follow the resulting code.
Right, Petr.
I was trying out a few things before I ended up with what I sent here.
Bu yeah.. I did realize arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() would have been better
after sending out v1. Will take care of that in v2.
Thanks
Hari
Powered by blists - more mailing lists