From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Vkns8-0004FS-Uy for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:34:10 +0000 Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8BA3EE0C1 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801A645DE55 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.nic.fujitsu.com [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD5045DE53 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDDF1DB804B for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.136]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D77E18002 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:39 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5292D30E.5070003@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:33:18 +0900 From: HATAYAMA Daisuke MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] makedumpfile: add parameters to update_cyclic_region References: <20131125023150.GB13197@dhcp-16-252.nay.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20131125023150.GB13197@dhcp-16-252.nay.redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=twosheds.infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Baoquan He Cc: kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp, kexec@lists.infradead.org, chaowang@redhat.com (2013/11/25 11:31), Baoquan He wrote: > Hi HATAYAMA and Atsushi, > > I think v2 is better than v1, since update_cyclic_region can be used > with a more flexible calling. > > What's your opinion about this? > > On 11/23/13 at 05:29pm, Baoquan He wrote: Thanks for your patch. The bug is caused by my patch set for creating a whole part of 1st bitmap before entering cyclic process. I think v1 is better than v2. The update_cyclic_range() call relevant to this regression is somewhat special compared to other calls; it is the almost only call that doesn't need to perform filtering processing. To fix this bug, please make the patch so as not to affect the other calls, in order to keep change as small as possible. -- Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec