From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8862C433DF for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E162082E for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726984AbgGPVI3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:29 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:6140 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725957AbgGPVI3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GL3C5T019388; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:21 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32aj74s8by-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:21 -0400 Received: from m0098416.ppops.net (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06GL44oW022538; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:21 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32aj74s8bd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:08:21 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GKp5AH028079; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:19 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 327527x08h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:19 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06GL6rlH65077642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:06:53 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F93AE045; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CCAAE055; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.102.2.181] (unknown [9.102.2.181]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:08:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Hari Bathini Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] powerpc/kexec_file: add helper functions for getting memory ranges To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Pingfan Liu , Nayna Jain , Kexec-ml , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Mimi Zohar , lkml , linuxppc-dev , Sourabh Jain , Petr Tesarik , Andrew Morton , Dave Young , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <159466087136.24747.16494497863685481495.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <874kq98xo4.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Message-ID: <5bacae70-7a01-7d37-89fe-ea896d6ac63e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:38:12 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <874kq98xo4.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_11:2020-07-16,2020-07-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_definite policy=outbound score=100 phishscore=0 spamscore=100 mlxscore=100 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=-1000 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007160139 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15/07/20 5:19 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > >> +/** >> + * get_mem_rngs_size - Get the allocated size of mrngs based on >> + * max_nr_ranges and chunk size. >> + * @mrngs: Memory ranges. >> + * >> + * Returns the maximum no. of ranges. > > This isn't correct. It returns the maximum size of @mrngs. True. Will update.. > > >> +/** >> + * add_tce_mem_ranges - Adds tce-table range to the given memory ranges list. >> + * @mem_ranges: Range list to add the memory range(s) to. >> + * >> + * Returns 0 on success, negative errno on error. >> + */ >> +int add_tce_mem_ranges(struct crash_mem **mem_ranges) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *dn; >> + int ret; >> + >> + for_each_node_by_type(dn, "pci") { >> + u64 base; >> + u32 size; >> + >> + ret = of_property_read_u64(dn, "linux,tce-base", &base); >> + ret |= of_property_read_u32(dn, "linux,tce-size", &size); >> + if (!ret) > > Shouldn't the condition be `ret` instead of `!ret`? Oops! Will fix it. >> +/** >> + * sort_memory_ranges - Sorts the given memory ranges list. >> + * @mem_ranges: Range list to sort. >> + * @merge: If true, merge the list after sorting. >> + * >> + * Returns nothing. >> + */ >> +void sort_memory_ranges(struct crash_mem *mrngs, bool merge) >> +{ >> + struct crash_mem_range *rngs; >> + struct crash_mem_range rng; >> + int i, j, idx; >> + >> + if (!mrngs) >> + return; >> + >> + /* Sort the ranges in-place */ >> + rngs = &mrngs->ranges[0]; >> + for (i = 0; i < mrngs->nr_ranges; i++) { >> + idx = i; >> + for (j = (i + 1); j < mrngs->nr_ranges; j++) { >> + if (rngs[idx].start > rngs[j].start) >> + idx = j; >> + } >> + if (idx != i) { >> + rng = rngs[idx]; >> + rngs[idx] = rngs[i]; >> + rngs[i] = rng; >> + } >> + } > > Would it work using sort() from lib/sort.c here? Yeah. I think we could reuse it with a simple compare callback. Will do that. Thanks Hari