On 01/07/20 1:16 pm, Dave Young wrote:
> 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.
Dave, I did think about it. But there are a couple of places this can get
tricky. One is ima_add_kexec_buffer() and the other is kexec_elf_load().
These call sites could be updated to set kbuf->mem before kexec_add_buffer().
But the current approach seemed like the better option for it creates a
single point of control in setting up segment buffers and also, makes adding
any new segments simpler, arch-specific segments or otherwise.
Thanks
Hari
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
