On 11/25/13 at 01:33pm, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> (2013/11/25 11:31), Baoquan He wrote:
> >Hi HATAYAMA and Atsushi,
> >
> >I think v2 is better than v1, since update_cyclic_region can be used
> >with a more flexible calling.
> >
> >What's your opinion about this?
> >
> >On 11/23/13 at 05:29pm, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> Thanks for your patch. The bug is caused by my patch set for creating a
> whole part of 1st bitmap before entering cyclic process.
>
> I think v1 is better than v2. The update_cyclic_range() call relevant
> to this regression is somewhat special compared to other calls; it is
> the almost only call that doesn't need to perform filtering processing.
> To fix this bug, please make the patch so as not to affect the other calls,
> in order to keep change as small as possible.
OK, if you think so. But I still think update_cyclic_region is a little
weird, its name doesn't match its functionality, this confuses code
reviewers. And it does something unnecessary somewhere. If it's
possible, I would rather take out the create_1st_bitmap_cyclic and
exclude_unnecessary_pages_cyclic, and call them explicitly where they
are really needed. Surely we can make a little change in both of them,
E.g add a parameter pfn to them, then we can also judge like
update_cyclic_region has done:
if (is_cyclic_region(pfn))
return TRUE;
If you insist on v1 is a better idea, I will repost based on it, but keep
my personal opinion.
Baoquan
Thanks
>
> --
> Thanks.
> HATAYAMA, Daisuke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
