Re: [PATCH v5] kdb: Simplify kdb commands registration

[Sumit Garg]

Hi Doug,

On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 00:10, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:08 PM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Simplify kdb commands registration via using linked list instead of
> > static array for commands storage.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Introduce new method: kdb_register_table() to register static kdb
> >   main and breakpoint command tables instead of using statically
> >   allocated commands.
> >
> > 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.
> > - Fix a misc checkpatch warning.
> > - I have dropped Doug's review tag as I think this version includes a
> >   major fix that should be reviewed again.
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Remove redundant "if" check.
> > - Pick up review tag from Doug.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Remove redundant NULL check for "cmd_name".
> > - Incorporate misc. comment.
> >
> >  kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_bp.c      |  81 ++++--
> >  kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c    | 472 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_private.h |   3 +
> >  3 files changed, 343 insertions(+), 213 deletions(-)
>
> This looks good to me, thanks!
>
> Random notes:
>
> * We no longer check for "duplicate" commands for any of these
> statically allocated ones, but I guess that's fine.

Yeah, I think that check is redundant for static ones.

>
> * Presumably nothing outside of kdb/kgdb itself needs the ability to
> allocate commands statically.  The only user I see now is ftrace and
> it looks like it runs late enough that it should be fine.

Agree.

>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>

Thanks,
-Sumit

>
> -Doug