From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80C206AB7 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:51:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707540693; cv=none; b=ualkSji1wnCvGg4T9mWpXOvJI+4LvBZqLhkYP53qyWrgDz6yezw1vjbvTDPnL34Z+juWjAf6YvDojHwvgewdCjTofdyA4j4mwo57FFeSTOXYjII5YVcU3L7S1USuqPhV/bHqLWAi08iYP7lXqquUbL/IrXb4SrYYbCwjiI+uN3M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707540693; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lm5mhGsGxEyxIO5BKr7Wbgt8tZKL0bod5Tz1MxiIzeQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=R2pIr71WRHu/s390w4eRc3cd9jVPv8P0TYJgZOei15ZAQ2FL5hv2PcIkCrpT4/JZ4FVF27RlNWP6RlVcdYanP1xTJAyfYetoi3GUW6r9NbKb0dzxcKFJ+AVmbPyJSTD9GM9S/ufbPB1wb1Cm4h5OyMRKGw/bePizwGBiNZJptkg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=hpjaqcD9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="hpjaqcD9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707540687; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ro8rUn2VeTdW1n/4yHjYsv5KEEL3rbmZwbel3sqRTQg=; b=hpjaqcD9LxWEBOGsJaHKn7wAli209zsiWinnWCMLL6PlkvkTjBAIcq4phdiDyX3Nx+G4FV KCuYG5J2lYiz+E/WkSHNc7WHs20ti0FYyzqw1tXe32mbdYEVHJIbo1eNK2Sk8P9VvnUCpb AIH1tgPfLG3AzqsI7se2pMNIczlqtQQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-453-4iDbVx2BN9uxqJO_PVzkBQ-1; Fri, 09 Feb 2024 23:51:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4iDbVx2BN9uxqJO_PVzkBQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485B4811E79; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.116.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30E98AC1D; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:51:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:51:21 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: Hari Bathini , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Kexec-ml , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] bpf: fix warning for crash_kexec Message-ID: References: <20240209123520.778599-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 On 02/09/24 at 11:18am, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 02/09, Hari Bathini wrote: > > With [1], CONFIG_KEXEC & !CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is supported but that led > > to the below warning: > > > > "WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol crash_kexec" > > > > Fix it by using the appropriate #ifdef. > > Same question here: how did you find this particular kconfig option > (CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP) to use? Looking at the code, crash_kexec is defined > in kernel/kexec_core.c and it's gated by CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE. So the > existing ifdef seems correct? This patch is based on the latest next tree, I have made some changes to split the crash code from kexec_core.c. If you check next/master branch, crash_kexec is not in kernel/keec_core.c any more.