From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4946CD5BD1 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:09:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=BRv5wqV7d5ThaVx6PFMHAXzziIsNyXnz2a/5mWnlXNY=; b=zXAuuzqQsMgB2QkR4MkpeGtbBi ALlo13L/aI8YGnI3ax/ROXGWDXu5TSVtYT5Q5LOwto2VLF6+DHhUhIS/IhPwLepjYQUabbuHv5kFq 2OGrExBR2NlPAkosihqxd544qvQUGSSIiVeJIuTmrV8GzEPJQ3+FEp7AoOw6v2Qm0uOFJAiDsC8kV oPvXrdEItln8nrxRwxGDFq3D/B0M59ziWUDCv2NPDc1V+1DYF+Lp/HyN6xmjWEJFGP16fd5dhEQMX bolUj1aEodLKvFKWl0vpjn5Vau5P45/FGR5rOF1Ss3thC/zi/JQAtfcYg8lbyBhH7/KAIR1+UzW9i N9vfRi5w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wUSc0-0000000DY9Q-3OsL; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:09:08 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wUSby-0000000DY8o-2izq for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:09:07 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE6143E3B; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC01E1F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:09:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780420146; bh=BRv5wqV7d5ThaVx6PFMHAXzziIsNyXnz2a/5mWnlXNY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=dYU/G6bjFW/SvwsoB8Fox13WuOwWByQF38mc9908oJll8d3LF82iDed3Mp8B0LMBT 3IHRQPcn2JcFzJBp/WWHWqiQEnlZnBeun2NzG1u6zgaAoQTMiSxmHAdIeENbMQj4bP 6RIafSAw4DLXs8SeJSFtoD9qJv4Sypq9Ip7PlRS90P6/trIMkwseDtjtLihNoGleQE zkLbgRGGAZYanQ6AsFak9ZrJzRP7s4DJSpC6MmAmULyI8mqUhw2bz2RiKvBx4AnTJD O+eGyE63NoUBPBKAD1KLjWogkh8Q4kmNWhf8BzB9XGzKDHouxqtXN9qgyF+h8y4JzR OGhE6xUJtlB7A== From: Pratyush Yadav To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBDxYJhcGnFhHNraQ==?= Cc: Pratyush Yadav , Andrew Morton , Baoquan He , Pasha Tatashin , Mike Rapoport , kexec@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kho: try to allocate contiguous memory for kexec segments In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha=C5=82_C=C5=82api=C5=84ski=22's?= message of "Tue, 2 Jun 2026 19:08:09 +0200") References: <20260601193014.896405-1-mclapinski@google.com> <2vxz4ijkev5f.fsf@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 19:09:03 +0200 Message-ID: <2vxzjysgdg40.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260602_100906_707281_FDE4AC0E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.57 ) X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 02 2026, Micha=C5=82 C=C5=82api=C5=84ski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 6:58=E2=80=AFPM Pratyush Yadav wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 01 2026, Michal Clapinski wrote: >> >> > This allows us to skip relocations (and maybe checksum calculation >> > in the future). >> >> I'm confused. Doesn't your patch "kexec_file: skip checksum verification >> when safe" [0] skip the checksum for KHO already? So this only skips the >> relocations part then? >> >> And based on the discussion on that thread, relocations don't seem to >> take much time. So is there a real need for this patch? > > I sent this patch out yesterday, then realized it wasn't going to work > so I abandoned this approach. > Today I sent patch [0] that skips the checksum for KHO, so this patch > is no longer needed. Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. [...] --=20 Regards, Pratyush Yadav