Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] kexec: print out debugging message if required for kexec_load

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 11/27/25 at 11:00am, Qiang Ma wrote:
> 
> 在 2025/11/27 10:36, Baoquan He 写道:
> > On 11/27/25 at 10:04am, Qiang Ma wrote:
> > > 在 2025/11/27 09:47, Baoquan He 写道:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On 11/26/25 at 04:44pm, Qiang Ma wrote:
> > > > > Overview:
> > > > > =========
> > > > > The commit a85ee18c7900 ("kexec_file: print out debugging message
> > > > > if required") has added general code printing in kexec_file_load(),
> > > > > but not in kexec_load().
> > > > > Since kexec_load and kexec_file_load are not triggered simultaneously,
> > > > > we can unify the debug flag of kexec and kexec_file as kexec_dbg_print.
> > > > As I said in your last post, this is not needed at all, you just add a
> > > > not needed thing to kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > So NACK this patchset, unless you have reason to justify it. Sorry about
> > > > it.
> > > The segment prints discussed in the last post,
> > > 
> > > this patchset has been removed, leaving only type/start/head of kimage and
> > > flags.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think the current patchset is still necessary.
> > > For example, renaming kexec_file_dbg_print is still necessary, but not for
> > > kexec_file.
> > How come renaming kexec_file_dbg_print is a justification in this case.
> > 
> > No, kexec_file_dbg_print is named because it's only for kexec_file
> > debugging printing. Because we have had enough debugging printing for
> > kexec_load interface. Do you have difficulty on debugging printing of
> > kexec_load?
> It's sufficient now, but there might be a need in the future.
> Also, there's kexec_dprintk. Judging from its name, it seems like a

Hmm, as I ever said in earlier discussion, kexec sometime means generic
handling including kexec_load and kexec_file_load interfaces. Both possible
future need and kexec_dprintk which seems a little ambiguous to you are
not justified. We do not suggest adding these meaningless code to
kernel. Please do't continue spending effort on this, that is not good.

I welcome cleanup/refactoring/fix for kexec/kdump to improve code, but
adding non-reasonable code is not included.

> universal kexec print.
> Looking at the code, it feels like not only the kexec_file interface path
> uses it for printing.
> 
> So, would it be better to rename kexec_file_dbg_print to kexec_dbg_print.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
>