Re: [PATCH 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct

[Daniel Kiper]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.09.12 at 20:06, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) on different archs could
> > not use default functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump
> > generic code. To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was introduced.
> > It allows a developer to replace all or some functions and control some
> > functionality of kexec/kdump generic code.
>
> I'm not convinced that doing this at the architecture independent
> layer is really necessary/desirable. Nevertheless, if that's the right
> place, then everything else looks good to me, except for a
> cosmetic thing:

I do not like this patch, too. However, this is the simplest
solution. If you do not do that in that way then you must
duplicate most of kernel/kexec.c functionality in architecture
depndent files.

> > @@ -392,7 +435,7 @@ static void kimage_free_page_list(struct list_head *list)
> >
> >  		page = list_entry(pos, struct page, lru);
> >  		list_del(&page->lru);
> > -		kimage_free_pages(page);
> > +		(*kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages)(page);
>
> These constructs are generally better readable without the
> explicit yet redundant indirection:
>
> 		kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages(page);

I have done that in that way because during my work on memory hotplug
Andrew Morton aligned my patches to that syntax. However,
I do not insist on staying with it.

Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/