public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/ioremap: introduce helper to implement xxx_is_setup_data()
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:07:19 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZzwA53x3KYQgDbeQ@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cc5e26c-42fc-a700-ae19-608920cafe44@amd.com>

On 11/18/24 at 09:19am, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 11/17/24 19:08, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Functions memremap_is_setup_data() and early_memremap_is_setup_data()
> > share completely the same process and handling, except of the
> > different memremap/unmap invocations.
> > 
> > So add helper __memremap_is_setup_data() to extract the common part,
> > parameter 'early' is used to decide what kind of memremap/unmap
> > APIs are called. This simplifies codes a lot by removing the duplicated
> > codes, and also removes the similar code comment above them.
> > 
> > And '__ref' is added to __memremap_is_setup_data() to suppress below
> > section mismatch warning:
> > 
> > ARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: __memremap_is_setup_data+0x5f (section: .text) ->
> > early_memunmap (section: .init.text)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c | 108 +++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> > index 8d29163568a7..68d78e2b1203 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> > @@ -628,12 +628,13 @@ static bool memremap_is_efi_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> >  	return false;
> >  }
> >  
> > +#define SD_SIZE sizeof(struct setup_data)
> 
> Nit, I still think you should use "sizeof(*data)" in the code instead of
> creating a #define.

Thanks for reviewing, Tom.

Boris suggested this. Both is fine to me. If there is indeed a tiny
preference, I would choose SD_SIZE. It's going a bit far, but not too
far.

> 
> >  /*
> >   * Examine the physical address to determine if it is boot data by checking
> >   * it against the boot params setup_data chain.
> >   */
> > -static bool memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> > -				   unsigned long size)
> > +static bool __ref __memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> 
> Oh, I see why the __ref is needed now, because this calls an __init
> function based on the early bool.

Exactly, I explained in another thread replying to you, it could be
ignored.

> 
> While this nicely consolidates the checking, I'll let the x86
> maintainers decide whether they like that an __init function is calling
> a non __init function.
...... snip.......
> > -	return false;
> > +static bool early_memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> 
> This should retain the original __init reference.

OK, so you suggest they are like below, right?

static bool __ref __memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
                                                bool early)
{
	......
}

static bool memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr)
{
        return __memremap_is_setup_data(phys_addr, false);
}
 
static bool __init early_memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr)
{
        return __memremap_is_setup_data(phys_addr, true);
}

I can make v3 if we all agree on this.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-11-19  3:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-18  1:08 [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/ioremap: clean up the mess in xxx_is_setup_data Baoquan He
2024-11-18  1:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/ioremap: introduce helper to implement xxx_is_setup_data() Baoquan He
2024-11-18 15:19   ` Tom Lendacky
2024-11-19  3:07     ` Baoquan He [this message]
2024-11-19 10:55       ` Ingo Molnar
2024-11-20  7:21         ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20  7:56       ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20  8:25     ` Ingo Molnar
2024-11-20 14:14       ` Tom Lendacky
2024-11-25  9:07         ` Ingo Molnar
2024-11-26  8:15           ` Baoquan He
2024-11-18  1:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/mm: clean up unused parameters of functions Baoquan He

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZzwA53x3KYQgDbeQ@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
    --to=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox