linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org (Bjorn Andersson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_{start,stop}() functions
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:02:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170503000205.GZ15143@minitux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1493758742-26148-1-git-send-email-spjoshi@codeaurora.org>

On Tue 02 May 13:59 PDT 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote:

> In the context of recovering from crash,
> rproc_trigger_recovery() does rproc_shutdown() followed
> by rproc_boot(). The remoteproc resources are cleaned up
> in rproc_shutdown() and immediately reallocated in
> rproc_boot() which is an unnecessary overhead.
> 
> Furthermore, we want the memory regions to be accessible
> after stopping the remote processor, to be able to extract
> the memory content for a coredump.
> 
> The current patch factors out the code in rproc_boot() and

"This patch factors..."

> rproc_shutdown() path and introduces rproc_{start,stop}()
> in order to avoid resource allocation overhead.
> 

I think the result of the two patches looks good.

But I would prefer if you splice them differently. If I read the patches
correctly you should be able to introduce rproc_start()/stop() and move
rproc_boot()/shutdown() over to use these in one patch and then in a
second patch modify the behavior of the recovery.

That way if one bisects any issues to either one we know if it was the
refactoring or the modification of the recovery behavior.

Regards,
Bjorn

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-05-03  0:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-02 20:59 [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_{start,stop}() functions Sarangdhar Joshi
2017-05-02 20:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: Rearrange code to avoid duplication Sarangdhar Joshi
2017-05-03  0:02 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2017-05-03  2:06   ` [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_{start,stop}() functions Sarangdhar Joshi
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-02-07  3:24 Sarangdhar Joshi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170503000205.GZ15143@minitux \
    --to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).