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;
Message-ID: <a02186b9-b72c-1484-2973-c59272ae0a7e@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:10:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] x86/e820: Refactor e820__range_remove
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc:     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, rppt@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com,
        hughsient@gmail.com, alex.bazhaniuk@eclypsium.com,
        alison.schofield@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org
References: <20220425171526.44925-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <20220425171526.44925-6-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220425171526.44925-6-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/25/22 10:15, Martin Fernandez wrote:
> +/**
> + * e820__range_remove() - Remove an address range from e820_table.
> + * @start: Start of the address range.
> + * @size: Size of the address range.
> + * @old_type: Type of the entries that we want to remove.
> + * @check_type: Bool to decide if ignore @old_type or not.
> + *
> + * Remove [@start, @start + @size) from e820_table. If @check_type is
> + * true remove only entries with type @old_type.
> + *
> + * Return: The size removed.
> + */

The refactoring looks promising.  But, there's a *LOT* of kerneldoc
noise, like:

> + * @table: Target e820_table.
> + * @start: Start of the range.
> + * @size: Size of the range.

and this:

> + * struct e820_type_updater_data - Helper type for
> + * __e820__range_update().
> + * @old_type: old_type parameter of __e820__range_update().
> + * @new_type: new_type parameter of __e820__range_update().

Those are just a pure waste of bytes.  I suspect some more judicious
function comments would also make the diffstat look more palatable.

Also, in general, the naming is a bit verbose.  You might want to trim
some of those names down, like:

> +static bool __init crypto_updater__should_update(const struct e820_entry *entry,
> +						 const void *data)
> +{
> +	const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *crypto_updater_data =
> +		(const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *)data;

Those are just some high-level comments.  This also needs some really
careful review of the refactoring to make sure that it doesn't break any
of the existing e820 users.