From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756007AbcBIMKX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:10:23 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35118 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750781AbcBIMKU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:10:20 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:10:16 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/setup: Merge {early_,}reserve_initrd() to one
 function
Message-ID: <20160209121016.GD500@gmail.com>
References: <1454954546-23074-1-git-send-email-kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
 <20160209091626.GA12570@gmail.com>
 <CANCZXo6w_oMP=VUcAe1B=i-SDPgjQqOCq0HVPAFO43aO-Hrn0g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANCZXo6w_oMP=VUcAe1B=i-SDPgjQqOCq0HVPAFO43aO-Hrn0g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Ingo,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > So I don't think the code got easier to understand - in particular the
> > memblock_reserve()/free() pattern, depending on a flag value, is confusing.
> >
> > The duplication is there - but please factor it out into a helper structure
> > ('struct ramdisk') and a helper function that sets up the structure.
> 
> What if instead of `struct ramdisk`, we will move all definitions/check from
> the early_reserve_initrd to the setup_arch() and than will pass these values
> to the reserve_initrd()?

There's too many of them, putting them into 'struct ramdisk' cleans up and 
documents the whole code.

And yes, 'struct ramdisk' state should be defined in setup_arch(), that way it 
does not have to be calculated twice: so the patch becomes not just a code size 
reduction but a (small) runtime reduction as well.

Should be tested with a real ramdisk, to make sure everything still works fine.

Thanks,

	Ingo