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

Qiang Ma
2025-11-27T03:00:51Z

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
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.

>
>