From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 3sHfc54lS9zDqCZ for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:45:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u7M3i8wC010216 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:45:39 -0400 Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (e24smtp02.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.86]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 24yauq68cn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:45:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:45:37 -0300 Received: from d24relay02.br.ibm.com (d24relay02.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.26]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64CC352005F for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (d24av04.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.97]) by d24relay02.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u7M3jXBf17498564 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:45:33 -0300 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u7M3jWk9001732 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:45:33 -0300 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Dave Young Cc: Stewart Smith , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Baoquan He , Michael Ellerman , Balbir Singh , x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Eric Richter , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Thomas Gleixner , Samuel Mendoza-Jonas , Mimi Zohar , Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation for some segments. Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:45:31 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <1471058305-30198-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3959832.c4ESAKX1ch@hactar> <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <2442665.06xGC9PLW9@hactar> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:36:43 schrieb Dave Young: > On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young: > > > On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > Hello Dave, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review! > > > > > > > > [ Trimming down Cc: list a little to try to clear the "too many > > > > recipients"> > > > > > > > > mailing list restriction. ] > > > > > > I also got "too many recipients".. Thanks for the trimming. > > > > Didn't work though. What is the maximum number of recipients? > > I have no idea as well.. > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young: > > > > > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > > > Adds checksum argument to kexec_add_buffer specifying whether > > > > > > the > > > > > > given > > > > > > segment should be part of the checksum calculation. > > > > > > > > > > Since it is used with add buffer, could it be added to kbuf as a > > > > > new > > > > > field? > > > > > > > > I was on the fence about adding it as a new argument to > > > > kexec_add_buffer > > > > or as a new field to struct kexec_buf. Both alternatives make sense > > > > to > > > > me. I implemented your suggestion in the patch below, what do you > > > > think?> > > > > > > > > > Like kbuf.no_checksum, default value is 0 that means checksum is > > > > > needed > > > > > if it is 1 then no need a checksum. > > > > > > > > It's an interesting idea and I implemented it that way, though in > > > > practice all current users of struct kexec_buf put it on the stack > > > > so > > > > the field needs to be initialized explicitly. > > > > > > No need to set it as false because it will be initialized to 0 by > > > default? > > > > As far as I know, variables on the stack are not initialized. Only > > global > > and static variables are. > > But designated initializers will do it. Ah, you are right! I'll provide an updated patch then. Thanks for your suggestion. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center