Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:47:38 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][v6] PM / hibernate: Print the possible panic reason when resuming with inconsistent e820 map |
| |
On Sun 2016-08-28 10:07:10, Chen Yu wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:56:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > What's the progress of this patch? Looks already have experts review it. > > > > > > Why this patch didn't accept? > > > > > This patch is a little overkilled, and I have saved another simpler > > > > > version to only check the md5 hash (as people suggested) for it. I can post it later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy to test and review it. > > > > > > > Here it is. As Rafael is on travel, it would be grateful > > > if you can give some advance on this, thanks! > > > > Better than last one. > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > + > > > + req = ahash_request_alloc(tfm, GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > what context is this called from? GFP_ATOMIC allocations like to fail... > > > It is in normal process context, OK, I'll change it to GFP_KERNEL. > > > +static int hibernation_e820_check(void *buf) > > > +{ > > > + int ret; > > > + char result[MD5_HASH_SIZE] = {0}; > > > + > > > + ret = get_e820_md5(&e820_saved, result); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + if (memcmp(result, buf, MD5_HASH_SIZE)) > > > + e820_conflict = true; > > > > Passing return value using global variable is ugly. Can you just print > > the warning and kill the box here? > Do you mean get rid of the panic hooker and just print the warning > here?
Yep, I'd do that... (And you probably want to rise the severity).
Thanks, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |