On 2021/12/30 10:39, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/30 0:51, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:04:21PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, you learned a very important lesson and the many attempts are not
>> in vain: code sharing does not make sense in every case.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I think you should concentrate on the arm64 side which is, AFAICT, what
>> you're trying to achieve.
>
> Right, a patchset should focus on just one thing.
>
>>
>> The "parse_crashkernel() unification" needs more thought because, as I
>> said already, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
>
> Yes, because it's not a functional improvement, it's not a performance
> optimization,
> it's also not a fix for a known bug, it's just a programmer's artistic
> pursuit.
>
>>
>> If you want to enforce the fact that "low" makes sense only when "high"
>> is supplied, parse_crashkernel_high_low() is not the right thing to do.
>> You need to have a *single* function which does all the parsing where
>> you can decide what to do: "if high, parse low", "if no high supplied,
>> ignore low" and so on.
In fact, this is how my current function parse_crashkernel_high_low() is
implemented.
+ /* crashkernel=X,high */
+ ret = parse_crashkernel_high(cmdline, 0, high_size, &base);
+ if (ret) //crashkernel=X,high is not specified
+ return ret;
+
+ if (*high_size <= 0) //crashkernel=X,high is specified but
the value is invalid
+ return -EINVAL; //Sorry, the type of high_size is
"unsigned long long *", so less than zero is impossible
+
+ /* crashkernel=Y,low */
+ ret = parse_crashkernel_low(cmdline, 0, low_size, &base); //If
crashkernel=Y,low is specified, the parsed value is stored in *low_size
+ if (ret)
+ *low_size = -1; //crashkernel=Y,low is not specified
>
> I understand your proposal, but parse_crashkernel_high_low() is a
> cost-effective
> and profitable change, it makes the current code a little clearer, and avoid
> passing
> unnecessary parameters "system_ram" and "crash_base" when other architectures
> use
> parse_crashkernel_{high|low}().
>
> I actually followed your advice in the beginning to do "parse_crashkernel()
> and
> parse_crashkernel_{high|low}() unification". But I found it's difficult and
> the
> end result may not be as good as expected. So I introduced
> parse_crashkernel_high_low().
>
> The parameter "system_ram" and "crash_base" of parse_crashkernel() is not
> need by
> "crashkernel=X,[high,low]". And parameter "low_size" of
> parse_crashkernel_high_low()
> is not need by "crashkernel=X[@offset]". The "parse_crashkernel() unification"
> complicates things. For example, the parameter "crash_size" means "low or
> high" memory
> size for "crashkernel=X[@offset]", but only means "high" memory size for
> "crashkernel=X,high".
> So we'd better give it two names with union.
>
>>
>> And if those are supported on certain architectures only, you can do
>> ifdeffery...
>
> I don't think so. These __init functions are small and
> architecture-independent, and do not
> affect compilation of other architectures. There may be other architectures
> that use
> it in the future, such as the current arm64.
>
>>
>> But I think I already stated that I don't like such unifications which
>> introduce unnecessary dependencies between architectures. Therefore, I
>> won't accept them into x86 unless there's a strong compelling reason.
>> Which I don't see ATM.
>
> OK.
>
>>
>> Thx.
>>
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
