On 2/15/22, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > Thanks for taking the time to reviewing it. Yeah, I did something like that in a previous version. Altough I wasn't really happy with that. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-efi/20220113213027.457282-4-martin.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I think that with the struct with the function arguments looks more clear than what I did, but you have to take into account that I need to create yet another function similar to those and another parameter to the struct, and with that I think that __e820__range_update will look scary. I'll give it a try anyway!
