From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750977Ab2JHLyX (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:54:23 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:39355 "EHLO acsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750754Ab2JHLyV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:54:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 04:54:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Kiper To: Cc: , , , , Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct X-Mailer: Zimbra on Oracle Beehive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:36 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >>> On 27.09.12 at 20:06, Daniel Kiper 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. > > It would have been a good idea to CC the maintainer of those files > directly with at least this patch if not the whole series. Thanks. I spotted later that maintainers are not in CC. I am going to prepare next version of patches with minor suggested fixes and repost them once again for review next week. > If they don't like this approach then there not much point in doing a > thorough reviewing of the other 10 patches I don't think, since I would > expect they will be required to change pretty substantially under those > circumstances. Sure. Daniel