Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly

From: hpa@zytor.com
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: john.hubbard@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:57:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DFA2707-89A6-4DD2-8DFB-0C2D1ABA1B3C@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907252343180.1791@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > It removes the clearing of the range between kbd_status and hdr
>without any
>> > replacement. It neither clears edid_info.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. Somehow I left that chunk out. Not my finest hour. 
>
>S*** happens
>
>> > +		char *p = (char *) boot_params;
>> > +		int i;
>> > +
>> > +		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(toclear); i++)
>> > +			memset(p + toclear[i].start, 0, toclear[i].len);
>> >  	}
>> >  }
>> 
>> Looks nice.
>
>I have no idea whether it works and I have no cycles either, so I would
>appreciate it if you could polish it up so we can handle that new
>fangled
>GCC "feature" nicely.
>
>Alternatively file a bug report to the GCC folks :)
>
>But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
>and
>the table based approach is definitely more readable and maintainable
>than
>the existing stuff.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	tglx

Doing this table based does seem like a good idea.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.