From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Introduce BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:08:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1192558097.17464.15.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071016162858.545617122@strauss.suse.de>
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 18:28 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>
> @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static int __init smp_scan_config (unsig
> smp_found_config = 1;
> printk(KERN_INFO "found SMP MP-table at %08lx\n",
> virt_to_phys(mpf));
> - reserve_bootmem(virt_to_phys(mpf), PAGE_SIZE);
> + reserve_bootmem(virt_to_phys(mpf), PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> if (mpf->mpf_physptr) {
> /*
Could you give all of these 0's a name? I really hate seeing random
magic numbers in these things. 0 completely kills the ability of
someone to read the code and figure out what it is trying to do without
going and looking at reserve_bootmem().
Or, alternatively, do something like this:
-extern void reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
+/*
+ * If flags is 0, then the return value is always 0 (success). If
+ * flags contains BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE, then -EBUSY is returned if the
+ * memory already was reserved.
+ */
+extern int reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, int flag);
+int reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
+{
+ /* the 0 is because we don't
+ return reserve_bootmem_exclusive(addr, size, 0);
+}
Where all of the existing callers stay the same. But, the ones wanting
exclusive access actually call the _exclusive() variant.
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Introduce BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:08:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1192558097.17464.15.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071016162858.545617122@strauss.suse.de>
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 18:28 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>
> @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static int __init smp_scan_config (unsig
> smp_found_config = 1;
> printk(KERN_INFO "found SMP MP-table at %08lx\n",
> virt_to_phys(mpf));
> - reserve_bootmem(virt_to_phys(mpf), PAGE_SIZE);
> + reserve_bootmem(virt_to_phys(mpf), PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> if (mpf->mpf_physptr) {
> /*
Could you give all of these 0's a name? I really hate seeing random
magic numbers in these things. 0 completely kills the ability of
someone to read the code and figure out what it is trying to do without
going and looking at reserve_bootmem().
Or, alternatively, do something like this:
-extern void reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
+/*
+ * If flags is 0, then the return value is always 0 (success). If
+ * flags contains BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE, then -EBUSY is returned if the
+ * memory already was reserved.
+ */
+extern int reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, int flag);
+int reserve_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
+{
+ /* the 0 is because we don't
+ return reserve_bootmem_exclusive(addr, size, 0);
+}
Where all of the existing callers stay the same. But, the ones wanting
exclusive access actually call the _exclusive() variant.
-- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-16 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-16 16:28 [patch 0/3] Protect crashkernel against BSS overlap Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:28 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:28 ` [patch 1/3] Add BSS to resource tree Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:28 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:28 ` [patch 2/3] Introduce BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:28 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 18:08 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2007-10-16 18:08 ` Dave Hansen
2007-10-16 18:44 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 18:44 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 18:58 ` Dave Hansen
2007-10-16 18:58 ` Dave Hansen
2007-10-17 11:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-17 11:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-17 11:36 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-17 11:36 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-18 4:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-18 4:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-18 11:15 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-18 11:15 ` Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:29 ` [patch 3/3] Use BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE on x86 Bernhard Walle
2007-10-16 16:29 ` Bernhard Walle
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-10-18 11:15 [patch 0/3] Protect crashkernel against BSS overlap Bernhard Walle
2007-10-18 11:15 ` [patch 2/3] Introduce BOOTMEM_EXCLUSIVE Bernhard Walle
2007-10-18 11:15 ` Bernhard Walle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1192558097.17464.15.camel@localhost \
--to=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bwalle@suse.de \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.