Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:51:57 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/kexec: fix a kexec_file_load failure
Message-ID: <20190108085157.GB17983@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20181228011247.GA9999@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20190108052440.GA17983@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <20190108084657.GA32321@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190108084657.GA32321@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/08/19 at 04:46pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > Wondering why this place doesn't need the initialization assignment.
> > Isn't it to assign in all places before kexec_add_buffer() calling?
> 
> C designated initializers will make sure to initialize it as zero.
> We set KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN as 0 so it just works.

Got it, it works, thanks. People may need check code to find out
KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN is 0, then realize this fact.

Other than this, it looks good to me, ack it.

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

Thanks
Baoquan