Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a02186b9-b72c-1484-2973-c59272ae0a7e@intel.com>
References: <20220425171526.44925-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <20220425171526.44925-6-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> <a02186b9-b72c-1484-2973-c59272ae0a7e@intel.com>
From:   Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:37:49 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKgze5Y1bKUAqPHEY71y_puTmuV2K02qjt0qzwO-KA3SYio0Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] x86/e820: Refactor e820__range_remove
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     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, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 4/26/22, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I can get rid off of the kerneldocs and just put normal comments for some
functions that really need them.

> 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;
>

Yes I agree on this. Do you have any suggestions for these kind of
functions? I want to explicitly state that these functions are in some of
namespace and are different of the other ones.

In the end I don't think this is very harmful since these functions are one-time
used (in a single place), is not the case that you have to use them everywhere..

> 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.
>

I'm glad to hear more people's thoughts on this. Thanks for the feedback.