From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754162AbcHVDhA (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:37:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44564 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753943AbcHVDg5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:36:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:36:43 +0800 From: Dave Young To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Stewart Smith , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Baoquan He , Michael Ellerman , Balbir Singh , x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Eric Richter , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Thomas Gleixner , Samuel Mendoza-Jonas , Mimi Zohar , Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation for some segments. Message-ID: <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <1471058305-30198-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <105132489.pljZvDuEBr@hactar> <20160822031745.GA30489@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <3959832.c4ESAKX1ch@hactar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3959832.c4ESAKX1ch@hactar> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 03:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young: > > On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > 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.. > > > > Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young: > > > > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > > 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?> > > > > 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. Thanks Dave