Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] kdump: Allow ELF header creation in new kernel

Martin Schwidefsky
2013-07-19T14:21:26Z

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:35:18 -0400
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:50:20AM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:35:41 -0400
> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:47:54PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:40:04 +0200
> > > > Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:42:07 -0400
> > > > > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > But this is all additional effort now and would not be necessary if we
> > > > > > > integrate this patch series in 3.11.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps we should let Andrew decide here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given the fact that andrew too prefers a fix to get s390 working at this
> > > > > > stage can we modify s390 copy_from_oldmem() to be able to copy to
> > > > > > vmalloc() memory area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For mmap(), let us disable it on s390. And rest of the cleanups w.r.t
> > > > > > ELF header swap etc, let us now target that for 3.12.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds reasonable?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vivek,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok this is not our preferred solution but we can't expect that life is
> > > > > always easy ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Our s390 kernel maintainer Martin Schwidefsky agreed to send the following
> > > > > two patches upstream for 3.11:
> > > > >
> > > > > * s390/kdump: Disable mmap for s390
> > > > > * s390/kdump: Allow copy_oldmem_page() copy to virtual memory
> > > >
> > > > Patches have been added to
> > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
> > > >
> > > > They will go upstream with my next pull request.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If everything related to crash dump is going through Andrew, wouldn't
> > > it make sense that even these fixes go through him?
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/commit/?h=features&id=5a74953ff56aa870d6913ef4d81934f5c620c59d
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/commit/?h=features&id=191a2fa0a8d2bbb64c98f9b1976fcb37ee5eae6b
> >
> > Most of the architecture specific kdump patches for s390 have gone through me,
> > and these two fall into that category. If you insist we can route them over
> > Andrew, it just seems easier to me via the s390 tree.
> >
>
> In this case one patch is modifying proc/vmcore.c and that's not arch
> specific change only.
>
> Secondly, in this specific instance, these changes are in the context
> of mmap() related changes which just were pushed. I find it easier
> if fixes flow through same channel where previous big set of patches
> flowed through.
>
> Hence, I was expecting that Michael will route these fixes through
> Andrew. But I am not too particular about it, so go ahead and
> push it to Linus.

The pull request is on its way.

--
blue skies,
Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.