>From: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp> >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, I've pushed this into devel branch. Atsushi Kumagai
