On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:04:21PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> Chen Zhou and I tried to share the code because of a suggestion. After so many
> attempts, it doesn't seem to fit to make generic. Or maybe I haven't figured
> out a good solution yet.
Well, you learned a very important lesson and the many attempts are not
in vain: code sharing does not make sense in every case.
> I will put the patches that make arm64 support crashkernel...high,low to
> the front, then the parse_crashkernel() unification patches. Even if the
> second half of the patches is not ready for v5.18, the first half of the
> patches is ready.
I think you should concentrate on the arm64 side which is, AFAICT, what
you're trying to achieve.
The "parse_crashkernel() unification" needs more thought because, as I
said already, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
If you want to enforce the fact that "low" makes sense only when "high"
is supplied, parse_crashkernel_high_low() is not the right thing to do.
You need to have a *single* function which does all the parsing where
you can decide what to do: "if high, parse low", "if no high supplied,
ignore low" and so on.
And if those are supported on certain architectures only, you can do
ifdeffery...
But I think I already stated that I don't like such unifications which
introduce unnecessary dependencies between architectures. Therefore, I
won't accept them into x86 unless there's a strong compelling reason.
Which I don't see ATM.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
