Hi Martin, On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 06:01:21PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote: > On 2/8/22, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:43:25PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote: > >> > __e820__range_update and e820__range_remove had a very similar > >> > implementation with a few lines different from each other, the lines > >> > that actually perform the modification over the e820_table. The > >> > similiraties were found in the checks for the different cases on how > >> > each entry intersects with the given range (if it does at all). These > >> > checks were very presice and error prone so it was not a good idea to > >> > have them in both places. > >> > >> Yay removing copy/paste code! :) > > > > Removing copy/paste is nice but diffstat of > > > > arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 383 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 283 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-) > > > > does not look nice even accounting for lots of comments :( > > > > I didn't look closely, but diffstat clues that the refactoring making > > things much more complex. > > > > Yes, that diffstat surprised me as well. > > I have to mention that 110 of those lines are kerneldocs and blank > lines, which is quite a lot. Also you have to take into account that I > expanded most of the function definitions for better formatting, which > also took some space. At last I had time to look more closely and I think that using a set of callbacks is over-complicated. I think this can be done way simpler, e.g like this (untested) draft: https://git.kernel.org/rppt/h/x86/e820-update-range > And as I was able to focus the "hard" part of the problem into a > single function, testing can be done easily as Kees suggested and I'm > planning to do so in the next patch. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
