On 12/29/21 at 11:03am, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 03:27:48PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > So I think you can unify the parse_crashkernel* in x86 first with just > > one function. And leave the further improvements to later work. But > > let's see how Boris think about this. > > Well, I think this all unnecessary work. Why? > > If the goal is to support crashkernel...high,low on arm64, then you > should simply *copy* the functionality on arm64 and be done with it. > > Unification is done by looking at code which is duplicated across > architectures and which has been untouched for a while now, i.e., no > new or arch-specific changes are going to it so a unification can be > as simple as trivially switching the architectures to call a generic > function. > > What this does is carve out the "generic" parts and then try not to > break existing usage. > > Which is a total waste of energy and resources. And it is casting that > functionality in stone so that when x86 wants to change something there, > it should do it in a way not to break arm64. And I fail to see the > advantage of all that. Code sharing ain't it. > > So what it should do is simply copy the necessary code to arm64. > Unifications can always be done later, when the dust settles. I think I agree with you about the better way is to doing some improvements so that arches can logically doing things better. I can leave with the way I suggested although it is not the best. But I think Leizhen needs a clear direction about how to do it. It is very clear now. See how he will handle this. > > IMNSVHO. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
