From: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] Generic handling of multi-page exclusions Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:18:31 +0000 >>> At that time, I chose the current code since it was simpler and safer. >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/kexec%40lists.infradead.org/msg10207.html >>> >>> Don't you like this ? >>> >> >>Sorry. I had forgotten this. We should keep the sanity check >>there. But in our policy, we should not pass to set_bitmap_cyclic(), >>pfn and cycle where pfn is not in the cycle. We should chceck that in >>the caller side and pass pfn in the cycle only. >> >>Also, on the current implementation, even if pfn outside a current >>cycle is passed to set_bitmap_cyclic(), we don't have any means to >>know that. >> >>So, how about warning that only once at runtime? > > Sounds good, it will be helpful to detect bugs in caller side. > Like this? > > diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c > index 75092a8..da960ad 100644 > --- a/makedumpfile.c > +++ b/makedumpfile.c > @@ -3361,9 +3361,16 @@ int > set_bitmap_cyclic(char *bitmap, unsigned long long pfn, int val, struct cycle *cycle) > { > int byte, bit; > + static int warning = 0; > > - if (pfn < cycle->start_pfn || cycle->end_pfn <= pfn) > + if (pfn < cycle->start_pfn || cycle->end_pfn <= pfn) { > + if (!warning) { > + MSG("WARNING: PFN out of cycle range. (pfn:%llx, ", pfn); > + MSG("cycle:[%llx-%llx])\n", cycle->start_pfn, cycle->end_pfn); > + warning = 1; > + } > return FALSE; > + } > > /* > * If val is 0, clear bit on the bitmap. > Yes, I thought this logic. -- Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke
