Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1613650198-27437-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
 <20210222120502.phazkmskgqvpe4yy@maple.lan> <CAFA6WYNiaeyFHrcTSp6x4ur5VjZAoJ=NfMPsa__dH2VK9ze7vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210222134750.zc473zz42bz4teu3@maple.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20210222134750.zc473zz42bz4teu3@maple.lan>
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:17:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYPzds7qHMoeG-mLk0r9o3ba+dXCf_zjLNmoVQRdxedscQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kdb: Simplify kdb commands registration
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc:     kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 19:17, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 06:33:18PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 17:35, Daniel Thompson
> > <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 05:39:58PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > Simplify kdb commands registration via using linked list instead of
> > > > static array for commands storage.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > - Fix kdb commands memory allocation issue prior to slab being available
> > > >   with an array of statically allocated commands. Now it works fine with
> > > >   kgdbwait.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure this is the right approach. It's still faking dynamic usage
> > > when none of the callers at this stage of the boot actually are dynamic.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, as an alternative I came across dbg_kmalloc()/dbg_kfree() as well but ...
>
> Last time I traced these functions I concluded that this heap can be
> removed if the symbol handling code is refactored a little.

Yeah, I also observed symbol handing code being the only user. So, I
will try to rework that code and see if we can get rid of this custom
heap.

> I'd be
> *seriously* reluctant to add any new callers... which I assume from your
> later comments you can live with ;-) .
>

Yes that's fine with me.

-Sumit

>
> Daniel.