From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IN5fj-00039M-5i for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:43:53 -0400 Received: from epmmp1 (mailout1.samsung.com [203.254.224.24]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JN200FQPLWJ0U@mailout1.samsung.com> for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:43:31 +0900 (KST) Received: from [107.108.71.71] by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JN2000FOLWOPO@mmp1.samsung.com> for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:43:37 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:21:05 +0530 From: Indraneel Subject: Re: Kdump for ARM (vmcore generation problem) In-reply-to: <20070816030251.GA20860@in.ibm.com> Message-id: <46C98029.2000800@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 References: <46C1AA1A.6050907@samsung.com> <20070816030251.GA20860@in.ibm.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: vgoyal@in.ibm.com Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org 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"). TIA, Indro > > Thanks > Vivek > > > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec