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.
next prev parent 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