From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ezC5z-0002ix-MU for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:06:21 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:06:06 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev() Message-Id: <20180322190606.859a0f1c7e2d1b2958daeb9f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20180323005845.GA25740@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180322033722.9279-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180322033722.9279-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180322152929.9b421af2f66cc819ad691207@linux-foundation.org> <20180323005845.GA25740@localhost.localdomain> 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=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Baoquan He Cc: prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > erk, this is pretty nasty. Isn't there a better way :( > > Yes, this is not efficient. > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure. Switching to a list_head sounds OK. The only issue really is memory consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct resources floating about(?). Or if we do have a lot, the machine is presumably huge (hope?). > AKASHI's method is more acceptable, and currently only kexec has this > requirement. What method is that? _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec