From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667BF426EDE for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 16:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778517358; cv=none; b=EatEcysIQJjxKhrTPxdyhcAhu6JmTvvH6vcmDlpoVN5LUXXrioMx0arOOYmWqSzCuNET53epAarXGKvp2Gw4GOn1xhHBI8IIOJsm9TlotFXgRXCfWUtFjKNeLFLhzFZdIvz5jZKECJtzZsJP5PqA0sszJJsYASNAdeNbJVetmWk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778517358; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pj/UdlMowZtsAQ7KPce4Qa+NpB32K7TNb0wg1aMyj7Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LJONYFaU8ydpfj0kQbW7IlihNKydWf3WeEcFnvJWLsKxQXN8jYXrrm5sM02iEfC6Iy4Ws/lyWIF46YtqwaoJ1Py9gXeaSYEDQgxJLUWr/PsXVkme36xjTycP1DqmcpQLUH9KLSG0o73Od8/Qi8hlrTHDfj+lKNn0rKLo++5m0JA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=idLeIRL9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="idLeIRL9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 548B1C2BCB0; Mon, 11 May 2026 16:35:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778517358; bh=pj/UdlMowZtsAQ7KPce4Qa+NpB32K7TNb0wg1aMyj7Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=idLeIRL9ovET+lCaODzlgj4aiZ5Y6SYo/1Jnar26AsQVrG4KKwahz9CaLUAyB/Rlr MHnjKSvDOXwXp9JHp76z2kksMMcgzPh0ISYvazdM8ZXDkXU6msyXONGDEtgYXzz3tE y3tUPsDp/xRlRSrY0L+nzRH1oE1dlcNKnwrBcTvAxSTQ1DPdG4/FrOODQgW7D2YebA y+6MQsnwGA9GfpNugxx+Mug7afGVBlWjTA8Us6XPYabaweaUbmshm/O9lGAWAITop+ r2r6pzJr61FVJOW+Luq+pIa7QXEytJ+1qu2tCFwdipUpjAdnOYxwfOTGkJDAFbhamq YNDSTl3xH862Q== From: Pratyush Yadav To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Pratyush Yadav , Pasha Tatashin , Alexander Graf , Muchun Song , Oscar Salvador , David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Jason Miu , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] kho: add a struct for radix callbacks In-Reply-To: (Mike Rapoport's message of "Mon, 11 May 2026 14:47:56 +0300") References: <20260429133928.850721-1-pratyush@kernel.org> <20260429133928.850721-4-pratyush@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 18:35:54 +0200 Message-ID: <2vxzzf25c39x.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, May 11 2026, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 03:39:05PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >> From: "Pratyush Yadav (Google)" >> >> A future commit will add more callbacks for the KHO radix tree. Add a >> struct for collecting the callbacks. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav (Google) >> --- [...] >> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c >> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c >> @@ -266,16 +266,18 @@ void kho_radix_del_key(struct kho_radix_tree *tree, unsigned long key) >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kho_radix_del_key); >> >> -static int kho_radix_walk_leaf(struct kho_radix_leaf *leaf, >> - unsigned long key, >> - kho_radix_tree_walk_callback_t cb) >> +static int kho_radix_walk_leaf(struct kho_radix_leaf *leaf, unsigned long key, >> + const struct kho_radix_walk_cb *cb) >> { >> unsigned long *bitmap = (unsigned long *)leaf; >> unsigned int i; >> int err; >> >> + if (!cb->key) >> + return 0; >> + >> for_each_set_bit(i, bitmap, PAGE_SIZE * BITS_PER_BYTE) { >> - err = cb(key | i); >> + err = cb->key(key | i); > > key(key) reads weird :) > Can't say I have a good name, maybe key_action()? I thought the context of it being under a callback struct would make it more obvious. I don't like key_action() much better TBH, but I don't have a strong opinion. Perhaps Pasha can suggest a 3rd option and we pick on randomly ;-) > >> if (err) >> return err; >> } -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav