Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	 skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	jasonmiu@google.com,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	corbet@lwn.net, ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn,
	 kexec@lists.infradead.org, pratyush@kernel.org, graf@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/9] kho: split out radix tree tracker into kho_radix.c
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:20:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiWYZhoSOAruIIM3@plex> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <178083348873.1648214.11020626647820932506.b4-review@b4>

On 06-07 14:58, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 03:32:27 +0000, Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> > Move the radix tree tracker implementation from the core KHO code
> 
> It's radix tree data structure implementation, kho memory tracker is it's
> user. Please rephrase to keep the semantics clear.

Yeap, I will update it.

> 
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/Makefile b/kernel/liveupdate/Makefile
> > index eec9d3ae07eb..a3ee8a5c27a2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/liveupdate/Makefile
> > +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/Makefile
> > @@ -7,7 +7,11 @@ luo-y :=								\
> >  		luo_flb.o						\
> >  		luo_session.o
> >  
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER)		+= kexec_handover.o
> > +kho-y :=								\
> > +		kexec_handover.o					\
> 
> I don't see much value in moving kexec_handover.o to a separate line,
> btw, the same is true for luo_core.o, but it's not important enough to
> change.

This is purely for consistency. I wanted to use the exact same style in 
the Makefile instead of having two different ways of declaring the 
object lists.

This:
    luo-y :=                                \
            luo_core.o                      \
            luo_file.o                      \
            luo_flb.o                       \
            luo_session.o

    kho-y :=                                \
            kexec_handover.o                \
            kho_radix.o                     \
            kho_block.o                     \
            kho_vmalloc.o

Or this:

    obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE)        += luo_core.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE)        += luo_file.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE)        += luo_flb.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE)        += luo_session.o

    obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER)        += kexec_handover.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER)        += kho_radix.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER)        += kho_vmalloc.o
    obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER)        += kho_block.o

I do not care which way is chosen as long as it is consistent. Since 
this series adds new separate files for KHO, and does not touch LUO, I 
used  LUO as template, but we can do the other way around.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-07 16:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-05  3:32 [RFC v1 0/9] kho: granular compatibility and header decoupling Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 1/9] kho: split out radix tree tracker into kho_radix.c Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-07 11:58   ` Mike Rapoport
2026-06-07 16:20     ` Pasha Tatashin [this message]
2026-06-07 17:59       ` Mike Rapoport
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 2/9] kho: split radix tree headers out of kexec_handover.h Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 3/9] kho: split out vmalloc preservation into kho_vmalloc.c Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 4/9] kho: split vmalloc headers out of kexec_handover.h Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 5/9] kho: move kho_block.h to kho/block.h Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 6/9] kho: introduce compatibility helpers and decouple block version Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 7/9] kho: decouple radix tree compatibility from global KHO version Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 8/9] kho: decouple vmalloc compatibility from global KHO version and update memfd Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-05  3:32 ` [RFC v1 9/9] liveupdate: add KUnit test to verify alphabetical order of compatibility strings Pasha Tatashin
2026-06-07 11:58 ` [RFC v1 0/9] kho: granular compatibility and header decoupling Mike Rapoport
2026-06-07 13:43   ` Pasha Tatashin

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=aiWYZhoSOAruIIM3@plex \
    --to=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=graf@amazon.com \
    --cc=jasonmiu@google.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
    --cc=ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox