From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IN5pZ-0003Eq-J4 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:54:03 -0400 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DA612367 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:53:59 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle Subject: Re: Kdump for ARM (vmcore generation problem) Message-ID: <20070820115359.GA21033@suse.de> References: <46C1AA1A.6050907@samsung.com> <20070816030251.GA20860@in.ibm.com> <46C98029.2000800@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46C98029.2000800@samsung.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: kexec@lists.infradead.org * Indraneel [2007-08-20 13:51]: > Hi Vivek/Bernhard, > > Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:41:54PM +0530, Indraneel wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I'm trying to make Kdump work for ARM. Till now i've managed to get the > >> /dev/oldmem interface working for taking dumps. Now i want to get the > >> /proc/vmcore interface working. > >> I'm unclear how to generate the elfcore headers required by routines in > >> vmcore.c. > >> > > > > Hi Indraneel, > > > > kexec-tools in user space generates those headers. Have a loot at > > kexec-tools code. > > Thanks for the lead. I'm looking into kexec-tools and trying to do > changes for ARM. I'm unable to interpret one of the comments in > kexec/crashdump-elf.c which says, > " The separate PT_LOAD program header is required either because the > kernel is mapped at a different location than the rest of the > physical memory or because we need to support relocatable kernels. > Or both as on x86_64. " > > Can you please provide some more clarification for this so that i can > figure out whether a separate PT_LOAD header is required for ARM > architecture as well (esp. the "kernel mapped to diff. loc. part of the > comment"). Is the ARM kernel relocatable? If no, then you don't need this. Thanks, Bernhard _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec