From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:53:59 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 00/11] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64 kdump Content-Language: en-US References: <20211123124646.1995-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> From: john.p.donnelly@oracle.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Catalin Marinas , Zhen Lei Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Young , Baoquan He , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , Feng Zhou , Kefeng Wang , Chen Zhou On 12/8/21 11:13 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:46:35PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >> Chen Zhou (10): >> x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH_ALIGN >> x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation >> consistent >> x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions >> reserve_crashkernel() >> x86: kdump: move xen_pv_domain() check and insert_resource() to >> setup_arch() >> x86: kdump: move reserve_crashkernel[_low]() into crash_core.c >> arm64: kdump: introduce some macros for crash kernel reservation >> arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X >> x86, arm64: Add ARCH_WANT_RESERVE_CRASH_KERNEL config >> of: fdt: Add memory for devices by DT property >> "linux,usable-memory-range" >> kdump: update Documentation about crashkernel >> >> Zhen Lei (1): >> of: fdt: Aggregate the processing of "linux,usable-memory-range" > > Apart from a minor comment I made on patch 8 and some comments from Rob > that need addressing, the rest looks fine to me. > > Ingo stated in the past that he's happy to ack the x86 changes as long > as there's no functional change (and that's the case AFAICT). Ingo, does > your conditional ack still stand? > > In terms of merging, I'm happy to take it all through the arm64 tree > with acks from the x86 maintainers. Alternatively, with the change I > mentioned for patch 8, the first 5 patches could be queued via the tip > tree on a stable branch and I can base the rest of the arm64 on top. > > Thomas, Ingo, Peter, any preference? > > Thanks. > Hi, If you notice the trend over the past year , some of additional review requests are because the submitter had to rebase to the next version. Can we get this acked and placed in a build so others can test and start using it ? Thank you, JD _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec