[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230602160900.GEZHoUHHpPKMnzV3bs@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 18:09:00 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
khalid.elmously@...onical.com, philip.cox@...onical.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv13 4/9] x86/boot/compressed: Handle unaccepted memory
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 06:36:44PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I don't see why it is simpler. It looks unnecessary noisy to me.
Noisy?
I have no clue what you mean.
It is regular:
if (bla && flu)
vs
if (bla)
return flu();
It is about having regular patterns which can be recognized at a quick
glance by those who get to stare at that code constantly.
> Configuration table suppose to be present, even if unaccepted memory is
> not supported. Something is very wrong if it is missing.
I am not sure if it is the decompressor's job to do such validation
- I guess this is something the EFI code should do.
> I will downgrade it warn().
Yes, or simply return here without accepting memory - plain and simple.
> I wanted to keep unaccepted_table private to the libstub/unaccepted_memory.c.
> The setter provides a good spot for documentation to guide unaccepted
> memory enablers for other archs.
>
> Still want replace it with direct assignment?
No clue. Why would you want to keep a variable in the libstub private
which is not even in kernel proper, AFAICT?
> Okay, I will make init_unaccepted_memory() return true if unaccepted
> memory is present and hide defined it always-false for !UNACCEPTED_MEMORY.
> So this hunk will look this way:
>
> if (init_unaccepted_memory()) {
> debug_putstr("Accepting memory... ");
> accept_memory(__pa(output), __pa(output) + needed_size);
> }
Yap, thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists