From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WXmv6-0008KH-H3 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:27:42 +0000 Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF393EE189 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:27:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDC545DF49 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:27:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.nic.fujitsu.com [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445BA45DF42 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:27:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342CC1DB8038 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:27:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.136]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D441DB803E for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:27:17 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:27:08 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20140409.162708.93024867.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Generic handling of multi-page exclusions From: HATAYAMA Daisuke In-Reply-To: <0910DD04CBD6DE4193FCF86B9C00BE971FF28C@BPXM01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp> References: <20140408085436.51340ae2@hananiah.suse.cz> <20140408.171903.322808733.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> <0910DD04CBD6DE4193FCF86B9C00BE971FF28C@BPXM01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=twosheds.infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, ptesarik@suse.cz From: Atsushi Kumagai Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] Generic handling of multi-page exclusions Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0000 > > At that time, I chose the current code since it was simpler and safer. > http://www.mail-archive.com/kexec%40lists.infradead.org/msg10207.html > > Don't you like this ? > Sorry. I had forgotten this. We should keep the sanity check there. But in our policy, we should not pass to set_bitmap_cyclic(), pfn and cycle where pfn is not in the cycle. We should chceck that in the caller side and pass pfn in the cycle only. Also, on the current implementation, even if pfn outside a current cycle is passed to set_bitmap_cyclic(), we don't have any means to know that. So, how about warning that only once at runtime? Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec