Am Donnerstag, 30 Juni 2016, 11:07:00 schrieb Dave Young:

On 06/29/16 at 06:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

quoted

Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:47:51 schrieb Dave Young:

quoted

On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

quoted

+/**
+ * struct kexec_buf - parameters for finding a place for a buffer
in
memory + * @image:   kexec image in which memory to search.
+ * @mem:     On return will have address of the buffer in memory.
+ * @memsz:   Size for the buffer in memory.
+ * @buf_align:       Minimum alignment needed.
+ * @buf_min: The buffer can't be placed below this address.
+ * @buf_max: The buffer can't be placed above this address.
+ * @top_down:        Allocate from top of memory.
+ */
+struct kexec_buf {
+     struct kimage *image;
+     unsigned long mem;
+     unsigned long memsz;
+     unsigned long buf_align;
+     unsigned long buf_min;
+     unsigned long buf_max;
+     bool top_down;
+};

Rethink about the first patch, you dropped the user buffer in
kexec_buf
But later your passing IMA digests buffer patchset may need use it.

So keep it in kexec_buf should be better.

I'm not following. The IMA buffer patchset doesn't use
kexec_locate_mem_hole nor struct kexec_buf.

It does not use kexec_locate_mem_hole, but the buffer being passed is
very similar to a kexec_buf struct, no?

If what you're saying is that the arguments passed to 
kexec_add_handover_buffer in the IMA buffer patchset are very similar to the 
arguments passed to kexec_add_buffer then yes, it's true.

So you may refactor kexec_add_buffer and your new function to pass only
kimage and a kbuf, it will be better than passing all those arguments
separately.

To be honest I think struct kexec_buf is an implementation detail inside 
kexec_locate_mem_hole, made necessary because the callback functions it uses 
need to access its arguments. Callers of kexec_locate_mem_hole, 
kexec_add_handover_buffer and kexec_add_buffer shouldn't need to know it 
exists.

[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center