On 03/23/16 at 11:32am, Xunlei Pang wrote: > On 2016/03/23 at 10:48, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 03/01/16 at 05:53pm, Xunlei Pang wrote: > >> This is a bug fix. > >> > >> After this, I will try to do a cleanup for crash_unmap/map_reserved_pages() > >> (only used by S390) to consolidate it with arch_kexec_unprotect/protect_crashkres(). > > Hi Xunlei, Minfei, > > > > I think you need discuss together about how to do clean up codes in this > > place. From my point of view, arch_map/unmap_reserved_pages and > > arch_kexec_protect/unprotect_crashkres() are for the same goal but by > > different ways on different arch. So for Xunlei's patchset, you might > > need to rethink your implementation, the name of function. I personally > > think you just implement a x86 specific arch_map/unmap_reserved_pages. > > It may need a more generic name, and then add your x86 arch specific > > implementation. Sorry I can't see your patches on my mail client, > > Like what you said, I think arch_kexec_unprotect/protect_crashkres() are > generic enough, but any other better name is welcome :-) > > It also covered the newly-added kexec file path, and we can easily transfer > arch_map/unmap_reserved_pages into this new interface. I don't know the status of your patchset. If possible I think the 1st patch in your patchset shoule rename arch_map/unmap_reserved_pages to arch_kexec_protect/unprotect_crashkres, 2nd patch is to add your x86 specific patch. > > I was planning doing that, but sick recently, I will try to send a patch > doing that later. Yeah, totally understand. This is not urgent, please take care of yourself. > > Regards, > Xunlei > > > Xunlei. Since Andrew asked, I just checked these. > > > > I am fine with Minfei's patch 1/2. But for patch 2/2, it's a little > > comfortable to me. Is it really necessary to abstract code block from > > kexec_load, then wrap them into a newly added function do_kexec_load()? > > Without this wrapping is there a way to do your bug fix? Is there > > possibility that do_kexec_load will be called in other places? What's > > the benefit to wrap it into do_kexec_load against not wrapping? > > > > Thanks > > Baoquan > > > >> Regards, > >> Xunlei > >> > >> On 03/01/2016 at 04:02 PM, Minfei Huang wrote: > >>> v1: > >>> - Bisect the patch according to Andrew Morton's suggestion > >>> > >>> Minfei Huang (2): > >>> kexec: Make a pair of map/unmap reserved pages in error path > >>> kexec: Do a cleanup for function kexec_load > >>> > >>> kernel/kexec.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> kexec mailing list > >> kexec at lists.infradead.org > >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
