linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 04/11] fs/proc/vmcore: move vmcore definitions from kcore.h to crash

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: <b778d6d2-729b-4416-bc12-78a2e85b08f3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:37:23 +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 Pérez <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

>>>> If there are strong feelings I can use a different name, but
>>>
>>> Yes, I would suggest we better keep the old name or take a more
>>> appropriate one if have to change.
>>
>> In light of patch #5 and #6, really only something like "vmcore_mem_node"
>> makes sense. Alternatively "vmcore_range" or "vmcore_mem_range".
>>
>> Leaving it as "struct vmcore" would mean that we had to do in #5 and #6:
>>
>> * vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add()
>> * vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free()
>>
>> Which would *really* be misleading, because we are not "freeing" the vmcore.
>>
>> Would "vmcore_range" work for you? Then we could do:
>>
>> * vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add_range()
>> * vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free_ranges()
> 
> Yeah, vmcore_range is better, which won't cause misunderstanding.
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks, I'll use that and adjust patch #5 and #6, keeping your ACKs.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb