On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young: > > On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > Hello Dave, > > > > > > Thanks for your review! > > > > > > [ Trimming down Cc: list a little to try to clear the "too many > > > recipients"> > > > mailing list restriction. ] > > > > I also got "too many recipients".. Thanks for the trimming. > > Didn't work though. What is the maximum number of recipients? I have no idea as well.. > > > > Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young: > > > > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > > Adds checksum argument to kexec_add_buffer specifying whether the > > > > > given > > > > > segment should be part of the checksum calculation. > > > > > > > > Since it is used with add buffer, could it be added to kbuf as a new > > > > field? > > > > > > I was on the fence about adding it as a new argument to kexec_add_buffer > > > or as a new field to struct kexec_buf. Both alternatives make sense to > > > me. I implemented your suggestion in the patch below, what do you > > > think?> > > > > Like kbuf.no_checksum, default value is 0 that means checksum is > > > > needed > > > > if it is 1 then no need a checksum. > > > > > > It's an interesting idea and I implemented it that way, though in > > > practice all current users of struct kexec_buf put it on the stack so > > > the field needs to be initialized explicitly. > > > > No need to set it as false because it will be initialized to 0 by > > default? > > As far as I know, variables on the stack are not initialized. Only global > and static variables are. But designated initializers will do it. Thanks Dave
