linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range with platform

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: <1c8c204d-1f96-d3aa-1b7b-ec4cc7b1b79b@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:34:24 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range
 with platform


On 1/20/21 2:07 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/19/21 7:10 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:33:03PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Minor thing, we should make up our mind if we want to call stuff
>>> internally "memhp_" or "mhp". I prefer the latter, because it is shorter.
>>
>> I would rather use the latter as well. I used that in [1].
> 
> Okay, will change all that is 'memhp' as 'mhp' instead.
> 
>> MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE should be renamed if we agree on that.
>>
>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20201217130758.11565-1-osalvador@suse.de/
>>

While replacing 'memhp' as 'mhp' in this series, noticed there are
some more 'memhp' scattered around the code from earlier. A mix of
both 'memhp' and 'mhp' might not be a good idea. Hence should we
just change these remaining 'memhp' as 'mhp' as well and possibly
also MEMHP_MERGE_RESOURCE as suggested earlier, in a subsequent
clean up patch ? Would there be a problem with memhp_default_state
being a command line parameter ?

>From a tree wide search -

Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt:        memhp_default_state=online/offline
drivers/base/memory.c:int memhp_online_type_from_str(const char *str)
drivers/base/memory.c:  const int online_type = memhp_online_type_from_str(buf);
drivers/base/memory.c:                    online_type_to_str[memhp_default_online_type]);
drivers/base/memory.c:  const int online_type = memhp_online_type_from_str(buf);
drivers/base/memory.c:  memhp_default_online_type = online_type;
include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:extern int memhp_online_type_from_str(const char *str);
include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:extern int memhp_default_online_type;
mm/memory_hotplug.c:int memhp_default_online_type = MMOP_OFFLINE;
mm/memory_hotplug.c:int memhp_default_online_type = MMOP_ONLINE;
mm/memory_hotplug.c:static int __init setup_memhp_default_state(char *str)
mm/memory_hotplug.c:    const int online_type = memhp_online_type_from_str(str);
mm/memory_hotplug.c:            memhp_default_online_type = online_type;
mm/memory_hotplug.c:__setup("memhp_default_state=", setup_memhp_default_state);
mm/memory_hotplug.c:    mem->online_type = memhp_default_online_type;
mm/memory_hotplug.c:    if (memhp_default_online_type != MMOP_OFFLINE)