Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:10:51 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, dvhart@infradead.org,
        andy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com,
        hughsient@gmail.com, alex.bazhaniuk@eclypsium.com,
        alison.schofield@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] x86/e820: Refactor range_update and range_remove
Message-ID: <YgtR++NUG3w6DH11@kernel.org>
References: <20220203164328.203629-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <20220203164328.203629-4-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <202202071325.F8450B3B2D@keescook>
 <YgIseIEMotD2jg83@kernel.org>
 <CAKgze5a_o=+f6fE55p4D50qZSRNUEHUWBe+Fn8Fc=1RjFLfgeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKgze5a_o=+f6fE55p4D50qZSRNUEHUWBe+Fn8Fc=1RjFLfgeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 06:01:21PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote:
> On 2/8/22, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:43:25PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote:
> >> > __e820__range_update and e820__range_remove had a very similar
> >> > implementation with a few lines different from each other, the lines
> >> > that actually perform the modification over the e820_table. The
> >> > similiraties were found in the checks for the different cases on how
> >> > each entry intersects with the given range (if it does at all). These
> >> > checks were very presice and error prone so it was not a good idea to
> >> > have them in both places.
> >>
> >> Yay removing copy/paste code! :)
> >
> > Removing copy/paste is nice but diffstat of
> >
> >  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 383 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 283 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
> >
> > does not look nice even accounting for lots of comments :(
> >
> > I didn't look closely, but diffstat clues that the refactoring making
> > things much more complex.
> >
> 
> Yes, that diffstat surprised me as well.
> 
> I have to mention that 110 of those lines are kerneldocs and blank
> lines, which is quite a lot. Also you have to take into account that I
> expanded most of the function definitions for better formatting, which
> also took some space.

At last I had time to look more closely and I think that using a set of
callbacks is over-complicated.

I think this can be done way simpler, e.g like this (untested) draft:

https://git.kernel.org/rppt/h/x86/e820-update-range


> And as I was able to focus the "hard" part of the problem into a
> single function, testing can be done easily as Kees suggested and I'm
> planning to do so in the next patch.


-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.