On 01/21/22 at 07:48am, Eric DeVolder wrote:
......
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
> > > index 0c994ae37729..068f853f1c65 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/kexec.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h
> > > @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ struct crash_mem {
> > > extern int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
> > > unsigned long long mstart,
> > > unsigned long long mend);
> > > -extern int crash_prepare_elf64_headers(struct crash_mem *mem, int kernel_map,
> > > - void **addr, unsigned long *sz);
> > > +extern int crash_prepare_elf64_headers(struct kimage *image,
> > > + struct crash_mem *mem, int kernel_map,
> > > + void **addr, unsigned long *sz);
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE */
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_ELF
> > > @@ -299,6 +300,13 @@ struct kimage {
> > > /* Information for loading purgatory */
> > > struct purgatory_info purgatory_info;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_HOTPLUG
> > > + bool hotplug_event;
> > > + int offlinecpu;
> > > + bool elf_index_valid;
> > > + int elf_index;
> >
> > Do we really need elf_index_valid? Can we initialize elf_index to , e.g '-1',
> > then check if the value is valid?
>
> These members become part of struct kimage, and when the kimage is
> allocated, it is automatically zero'd. Wrt/ elf_index, 0 is a valid index,
> and so it needs to be qualified. I initially had used -1, but that required
> code and was fragile as I had to find the right place to do that. Using the
> boolean elf_index_valid, the problems with -1 vanish, and for free! I also
> found when examining the code that reading 'elf_index_valid' was better than
> 'elf_index != -1', more clear.
>
> Let me know what you think.
OK, I am fine with it. Will see if other people have comment.
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
