Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:36:43 schrieb Dave Young:

On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

quoted

Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young:

quoted

On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

quoted

Hello Dave,

Thanks for your review!

[ Trimming down Cc: list a little to try to clear the "too many
recipients">

  mailing list restriction. ]

I also got "too many recipients".. Thanks for the trimming.

Didn't work though. What is the maximum number of recipients?

I have no idea as well..

quoted

quoted

quoted

Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young:

quoted

On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

quoted

Adds checksum argument to kexec_add_buffer specifying whether
the
given
segment should be part of the checksum calculation.

Since it is used with add buffer, could it be added to kbuf as a
new
field?

I was on the fence about adding it as a new argument to
kexec_add_buffer
or as a new field to struct kexec_buf. Both alternatives make sense
to
me. I implemented your suggestion in the patch below, what do you
think?>

quoted

Like kbuf.no_checksum, default value is 0 that means checksum is
needed
if it is 1 then no need a checksum.

It's an interesting idea and I implemented it that way, though in
practice all current users of struct kexec_buf put it on the stack
so
the field needs to be initialized explicitly.

No need to set it as false because it will be initialized to 0 by
default?

As far as I know, variables on the stack are not initialized. Only
global
and static variables are.

But designated initializers will do it.

Ah, you are right! I'll provide an updated patch then. Thanks for your 
suggestion.

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center