Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 10:15 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
>> > + uint64_t tmp_start, tmp_end;
>> > +
>> > + propStart = of_find_property(of_chosen, "linux,ima-kexec-buffer",
>> > + NULL);
>> > + if (propStart) {
>> > + tmp_start = fdt64_to_cpu(*((const fdt64_t *) propStart));
>> > + ret = of_remove_property(of_chosen, propStart);
>> > + if (!ret) {
>> > + return ret;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + propEnd = of_find_property(of_chosen,
>> > + "linux,ima-kexec-buffer-end", NULL);
>> > + if (!propEnd) {
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + tmp_end = fdt64_to_cpu(*((const fdt64_t *) propEnd));
>> > +
>> > + ret = of_remove_property(of_chosen, propEnd);
>> > + if (!ret) {
>> > + return ret;
>> > + }
>>
>> There seems to be quite a bit of code duplication in this function and
>> in ima_get_kexec_buffer(). It could probably be cleaned up with some
>> refactoring.
>
> Sorry, my mistake. One calls of_get_property(), while the other calls
> of_find_property().
of_get_property() is a thin wrapper around of_find_property(), so if
that's the only difference I think they can still be merged.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
