Re: [PATCH v19 02/13] x86/setup: Use parse_crashkernel_high_low() to simplify code

Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2021-12-29T15:04:39Z

On 2021/12/29 18:46, Dave Young wrote:
> On 12/29/21 at 11:03am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 03:27:48PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>>> So I think you can unify the parse_crashkernel* in x86 first with just
>>> one function. And leave the further improvements to later work. But
>>> let's see how Boris think about this.
>>
>> Well, I think this all unnecessary work. Why?
>>
>> If the goal is to support crashkernel...high,low on arm64, then you
>> should simply *copy* the functionality on arm64 and be done with it.
>>
>> Unification is done by looking at code which is duplicated across
>> architectures and which has been untouched for a while now, i.e., no
>> new or arch-specific changes are going to it so a unification can be
>> as simple as trivially switching the architectures to call a generic
>> function.
>>
>> What this does is carve out the "generic" parts and then try not to
>> break existing usage.
>>
>> Which is a total waste of energy and resources. And it is casting that
>> functionality in stone so that when x86 wants to change something there,
>> it should do it in a way not to break arm64. And I fail to see the
>> advantage of all that. Code sharing ain't it.

It's just a worry, there's uncertainty about whether it's going to be. I think
the only thing that might change is the default value of "low_size". Of course,
the alignment size and start address may also change, but most of them can be
controlled by macros.

Chen Zhou and I tried to share the code because of a suggestion. After so many
attempts, it doesn't seem to fit to make generic. Or maybe I haven't figured
out a good solution yet.

>>
>> So what it should do is simply copy the necessary code to arm64.
>> Unifications can always be done later, when the dust settles.
>
> I think I agree with you about the better way is to doing some
> improvements so that arches can logically doing things better. I can
> leave with the way I suggested although it is not the best. But I think
> Leizhen needs a clear direction about how to do it. It is very clear
> now. See how he will handle this.

Surviving, then pursuing ideals.

I will put the patches that make arm64 support crashkernel...high,low to
the front, then the parse_crashkernel() unification patches. Even if the
second half of the patches is not ready for v5.18, the first half of the
patches is ready.

>
>>
>> IMNSVHO.
>>
>> --
>> Regards/Gruss,
>> Boris.
>>
>> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
>>
>
> .
>

--
Regards,
Zhen Lei