On 06/29/20 at 05:26pm, Hari Bathini wrote:
> 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.
Another way is use arch private function to locate mem hole, then set
kbuf->mem, and then call kexec_add_buf, it will skip the common locate
hole function.
But other than that I have some confusion about those excluded ranges.
Replied a question to patch 4.
Thanks
Dave
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
