On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 27.09.12 at 20:06, Daniel Kiper <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) on different archs could > > not use default functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump > > generic code. To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was introduced. > > It allows a developer to replace all or some functions and control some > > functionality of kexec/kdump generic code. > > I'm not convinced that doing this at the architecture independent > layer is really necessary/desirable. Nevertheless, if that's the right > place, then everything else looks good to me, except for a > cosmetic thing:
I do not like this patch, too. However, this is the simplest solution. If you do not do that in that way then you must duplicate most of kernel/kexec.c functionality in architecture depndent files. > > @@ -392,7 +435,7 @@ static void kimage_free_page_list(struct list_head > > *list) > > > > page = list_entry(pos, struct page, lru); > > list_del(&page->lru); > > - kimage_free_pages(page); > > + (*kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages)(page); > > These constructs are generally better readable without the > explicit yet redundant indirection: > > kexec_ops.kimage_free_pages(page); I have done that in that way because during my work on memory hotplug Andrew Morton aligned my patches to that syntax. However, I do not insist on staying with it. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
