[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca0dd4a7-e007-4092-8f46-446fba26c672@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:59:11 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Eugenio PĂ©rez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, Eric Farman
<farman@...ux.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/11] fs/proc/vmcore: move vmcore definitions from
kcore.h to crash_dump.h
On 15.11.24 10:44, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> These defines are not related to /proc/kcore, move them to crash_dump.h
>> instead. While at it, rename "struct vmcore" to "struct
>> vmcore_mem_node", which is a more fitting name.
>
> Agree it's inappropriate to put the defintions in kcore.h. However for
> 'struct vmcore', it's only used in fs/proc/vmcore.c from my code
> serching, do you think if we can put it in fs/proc/vmcore.c directly?
> And 'struct vmcoredd_node' too.
See the next patches and how virtio-mem will make use of the feactored
out functions. Not putting them as inline functions into a header will
require exporting symbols just do add a vmcore memory node to the list,
which I want to avoid -- overkill for these simple helpers.
>
> And about the renaming, with my understanding each instance of struct
> vmcore represents one memory region, isn't it a little confusing to be
> called vmcore_mem_node? I understand you probablly want to unify the
> vmcore and vmcoredd's naming. I have to admit I don't know vmcoredd well
> and its naming, while most of people have been knowing vmcore representing
> memory region very well.
I chose "vmcore_mem_node" because it is a memory range stored in a list.
Note the symmetry with "vmcoredd_node"
If there are strong feelings I can use a different name, but
"vmcore_mem_node" really describes what it actually is. Especially now
that we have different vmcore nodes.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists