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. > > > > > 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. > > 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. > "vmcore_mem_node" really describes what it actually is. Especially now that > we have different vmcore nodes. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
