On 20.11.24 10:42, Baoquan He wrote:
On 11/15/24 at 10:59am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 15.11.24 10:44, Baoquan He wrote:
On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
These defines are not related to /proc/kcore, move them to crash_dump.h
instead. While at it, rename "struct vmcore" to "struct
vmcore_mem_node", which is a more fitting name.
Agree it's inappropriate to put the defintions in kcore.h. However for
'struct vmcore', it's only used in fs/proc/vmcore.c from my code
serching, do you think if we can put it in fs/proc/vmcore.c directly?
And 'struct vmcoredd_node' too.
See the next patches and how virtio-mem will make use of the feactored out
functions. Not putting them as inline functions into a header will require
exporting symbols just do add a vmcore memory node to the list, which I want
to avoid -- overkill for these simple helpers.
I see. It makes sense to put them in crash_dump.h. Thanks for
explanation.
I'll add these details to the description.
And about the renaming, with my understanding each instance of struct
vmcore represents one memory region, isn't it a little confusing to be
called vmcore_mem_node? I understand you probablly want to unify the
vmcore and vmcoredd's naming. I have to admit I don't know vmcoredd well
and its naming, while most of people have been knowing vmcore representing
memory region very well.
I chose "vmcore_mem_node" because it is a memory range stored in a list.
Note the symmetry with "vmcoredd_node"
I would say the justification of naming "vmcore_mem_node" is to keep
symmetry with "vmcoredd_node". If because it is a memory range, it really
should not be called vmcore_mem_node. As we know, memory node has
specific meaning in kernel, it's the memory range existing on a NUMA node.
And vmcoredd is not a widely used feature. At least in fedora/RHEL, we
leave it to customers themselves to use and handle, we don't support it.
And we add 'novmcoredd' to kdump kernel cmdline by default to disable it
in fedora/RHEL. So a rarely used feature should not be taken to decide
the naming of a mature and and widely used feature's name. My personal
opinion.
It's a memory range that gets added to a list. So it's a node in a list
... representing a memory range. :) I don't particularly care about the
"node" part here.
The old "struct vmcore" name is misleading: makes one believe it somehow
represents "/proc/vmcore", but it really doesn't. (see below on function
naming)
If there are strong feelings I can use a different name, but
Yes, I would suggest we better keep the old name or take a more
appropriate one if have to change.
In light of patch #5 and #6, really only something like
"vmcore_mem_node" makes sense. Alternatively "vmcore_range" or
"vmcore_mem_range".
Leaving it as "struct vmcore" would mean that we had to do in #5 and #6:
* vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add()
* vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free()
Which would *really* be misleading, because we are not "freeing" the vmcore.
Would "vmcore_range" work for you? Then we could do:
* vmcore_alloc_add_mem_node() -> vmcore_alloc_add_range()
* vmcore_free_mem_nodes() -> vmcore_free_ranges()
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
