Re: [PATCH v2] makedumpfile: add parameters to update_cyclic_region

[HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>]

(2013/11/27 14:37), Baoquan He wrote:
> On 11/26/13 at 03:12am, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
>> Hello Baoquan,
>>
>> On 2013/11/26 11:53:34, kexec <kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/25/13 at 01:33pm, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
>>>> (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.
>>>
>>> OK, if you think so. But I still think update_cyclic_region is a little
>>> weird, its name doesn't match its functionality, this confuses code
>>> reviewers. And it does something unnecessary somewhere. If it's
>>> possible, I would rather take out the create_1st_bitmap_cyclic and
>>> exclude_unnecessary_pages_cyclic, and call them explicitly where they
>>> are really needed. Surely we can make a little change in both of them,
>>> E.g add a parameter pfn to them, then we can also judge like
>>> update_cyclic_region has done:
>>>
>>>          if (is_cyclic_region(pfn))
>>>                  return TRUE;
>>>
>>> If you insist on v1 is a better idea, I will repost based on it, but keep
>>> my personal opinion.
>>
>> I also prefer v1 because the usage of update_cyclic_region_without_exclude() is
>> definite and understandable while v2's update_cyclic_region() is complicated.
>>
>> On the other hand, I agree with your opinion, so could you post a cleanup patch
>> separately from v1 patch ?
>
> Hi Atsushi,
>
> Yeah, you are right, v1 is better. Then we can wait for HATAYAMA's cleanup
> patch. I know you are goint to release v1.5.5.
>

I don't have a time to make a clean-up patch now, at least within this year.

-- 
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec