Hi Petr,
On 29/06/20 5:09 pm, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Hi Hari,
>
> is there any good reason to add two more functions with a very similar
> name to an existing function? AFAICS all you need is a way to call a
> PPC64-specific function from within kexec_add_buffer (PATCH 4/11), so
> you could add something like this:
>
> int __weak arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> Call this function from kexec_add_buffer where appropriate and then
> override it for PPC64 (it roughly corresponds to your
> kexec_locate_mem_hole_ppc64() from PATCH 4/11).
>
> FWIW it would make it easier for me to follow the resulting code.
Right, Petr.
I was trying out a few things before I ended up with what I sent here.
Bu yeah.. I did realize arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() would have been better
after sending out v1. Will take care of that in v2.
Thanks
Hari
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
