On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 03:17:01PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [..]
>> @@ -1360,37 +1369,80 @@ static int __init parse_crashkernel_simp
>>
>> if (*cur == '@')
>> *crash_base = memparse(cur+1, &cur);
>> - else if (*cur != ' ' && *cur != '\0') {
>> - pr_warning("crashkernel: unrecognized char\n");
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + else {
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /* check with known suffix */
>> + for (i = 0; suffix_tbl[i]; i++)
>> + if (!strncmp(cur, suffix_tbl[i],
>> strlen(suffix_tbl[i])))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> So crashkernel=X@Y;high is a valid syntax? Looks like we will reserve
> X amount of RAM at base Y and ignore "high" or "low".
yes, we should reject them.
>
> [..]
...
>
> Why don't we structure it little differently. Now we seem to have 3
> categories of crashkernel= parameters.
>
> - crashkernel_simple (crashkernel=X or crashkernel=X@Y)
> - crashkernel_mem (crashkernel=range:size,.....)
> - crashkerenl_high_low_suffix (crashkernel=X;high or crashkernel=Y;low)
>
> if (suffix) {
> parse_crashkernel_high_low_suffix()
> } else {
> if (first_colon.....)
> parse_crashkernel_mem()
> else
> parse_crashkernel_simple();
> }
>
> And now you should not require "simple_only" function parameter and you
> can also do strict syntax checking for each type of crashkernel=
> parameter.
yes, that will the code more readable.
Just send -v4 of this patch that will not reuse parse_crashkernel_simple.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
