Re: [PATCHv4 3/8] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/8] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:39:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yl5nSSC4HpSWqfY7@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220418235015.mnujtlmmlyin7y6m@box.shutemov.name>

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 02:50:15AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I find it strange that you go after <linux/bitmap.h> which has limited
> exposure while <linux/acpi.h> and <linux/efi.h> are there already.

Funny you should mention that:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/YlCKWhMJEMUgJmjF@zn.tnic

I *have* been working towards that but it's a losing whack-a-mole game
when you and others keep adding new stuff.

So no, we won't take a pile of changes and let the maintainer clean it
up afterwards.

> What do you want me to do here?

I think the stuff coming from the linux/ namespace you can simply copy
into a header in compressed/, like I've done with efi.h.

> // <asm/bitops.h>

The asm/ stuff can be put into a shared/ namespace header like the io
stuff you did.

> As 1 bit represents 2M, not all chunks can be represented in the bitmap
> and they have to be accepted. But the *goal* is to record unaccepted
> memory into bitmap. Some accepting is a side effect.
> 
> The early_accept_memory() name is just wrong.

Ok, how about process_unaccepted_memory(). It should be generic enough.

> Okay, I will do as you want, but I really hate it.

I find it really weird that you feel so strongly about it. If I would
have been asked to do it, I would've done it without even considering
it. But ok, since you feel so strongly about it, I've asked what the
other maintainers think.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette