On 06/29/20 at 05:26pm, Hari Bathini wrote:

Hi Petr,

On 29/06/20 5:09 pm, Petr Tesarik wrote:

quoted

Hi Hari,

is there any good reason to add two more functions with a very similar
name to an existing function? AFAICS all you need is a way to call a
PPC64-specific function from within kexec_add_buffer (PATCH 4/11), so
you could add something like this:

int __weak arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf)
{
	return 0;
}

Call this function from kexec_add_buffer where appropriate and then
override it for PPC64 (it roughly corresponds to your
kexec_locate_mem_hole_ppc64() from PATCH 4/11).

FWIW it would make it easier for me to follow the resulting code.

Right, Petr.

I was trying out a few things before I ended up with what I sent here.
Bu yeah.. I did realize arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() would have been better
after sending out v1. Will take care of that in v2.

Another way is use arch private function to locate mem hole, then set
kbuf->mem, and then call kexec_add_buf, it will skip the common locate
hole function.

But other than that I have some confusion about those excluded ranges.
Replied a question to patch 4.

Thanks
Dave