On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:46:29PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
>Hi Fan,
>
>At 07/23/2018 05:29 PM, Chao Fan wrote:
>> If 'CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE' specified and the account of immovable
>> memory regions is not zero. Calculate the intersection between memory
>> regions from e820/efi memory table and immovable memory regions.
>> Or go on the old code.
>>
>> Rename process_mem_region to slots_count to match slots_fetch_random,
>> and name new function as process_mem_region.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Fan <fanc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>> b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>> index 4705682caf1f..10bda3a1fcaa 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>> @@ -631,9 +631,9 @@ static unsigned long slots_fetch_random(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -static void process_mem_region(struct mem_vector *entry,
>> - unsigned long minimum,
>> - unsigned long image_size)
>> +static void slots_count(struct mem_vector *entry,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> is not suitable.
>IMO, how about process_mem_slots() or you may have a better name, it's
>up to you.
It's from Kees Cook's advise, he wants to ues slots_count() to match
slots_fetch_random() in my old PATCH long long ago.
Since the method of handling this part is not changed a lot, so I keep
this name.
>
>> + unsigned long minimum,
>> + unsigned long image_size)
>> {
>> struct mem_vector region, overlap;
>> struct slot_area slot_area;
>
>slot_area is also unused.
Yes, I will make a PATCH to do the clean jobs.
Thanks,
Chao Fan
>
>Thanks,
> dou
>
