From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3rgPBC1B4NzDrF8 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 01:49:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u5UFjCPd003001 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:49:51 -0400 Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (e24smtp01.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.85]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23uw5rjcmd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:49:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:49:49 -0300 Received: from d24relay02.br.ibm.com (d24relay02.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.26]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808A01DC0054 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.93]) by d24relay02.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u5UFnlNM33161554 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:49:47 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u5UFnkFO024214 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:49:46 -0300 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Dave Young Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biederman Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] kexec_file: Generalize kexec_add_buffer. Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:49:44 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20160630150700.GA3058@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <1466538521-31216-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1994502.0E8c14rYFh@hactar> <20160630150700.GA3058@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <1866019.1p7Z0CLUZh@hactar> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am Donnerstag, 30 Juni 2016, 11:07:00 schrieb Dave Young: > On 06/29/16 at 06:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:47:51 schrieb Dave Young: > > > On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > +/** > > > > + * struct kexec_buf - parameters for finding a place for a buffer > > > > in > > > > memory + * @image: kexec image in which memory to search. > > > > + * @mem: On return will have address of the buffer in memory. > > > > + * @memsz: Size for the buffer in memory. > > > > + * @buf_align: Minimum alignment needed. > > > > + * @buf_min: The buffer can't be placed below this address. > > > > + * @buf_max: The buffer can't be placed above this address. > > > > + * @top_down: Allocate from top of memory. > > > > + */ > > > > +struct kexec_buf { > > > > + struct kimage *image; > > > > + unsigned long mem; > > > > + unsigned long memsz; > > > > + unsigned long buf_align; > > > > + unsigned long buf_min; > > > > + unsigned long buf_max; > > > > + bool top_down; > > > > +}; > > > > > > Rethink about the first patch, you dropped the user buffer in > > > kexec_buf > > > But later your passing IMA digests buffer patchset may need use it. > > > > > > So keep it in kexec_buf should be better. > > > > I'm not following. The IMA buffer patchset doesn't use > > kexec_locate_mem_hole nor struct kexec_buf. > > It does not use kexec_locate_mem_hole, but the buffer being passed is > very similar to a kexec_buf struct, no? If what you're saying is that the arguments passed to kexec_add_handover_buffer in the IMA buffer patchset are very similar to the arguments passed to kexec_add_buffer then yes, it's true. > So you may refactor kexec_add_buffer and your new function to pass only > kimage and a kbuf, it will be better than passing all those arguments > separately. To be honest I think struct kexec_buf is an implementation detail inside kexec_locate_mem_hole, made necessary because the callback functions it uses need to access its arguments. Callers of kexec_locate_mem_hole, kexec_add_handover_buffer and kexec_add_buffer shouldn't need to know it exists. []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center