Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] RISC-V: Add kexec/kdump support

Nick Kossifidis
2021-04-23T03:38:43Z

Στις 2021-04-23 06:30, Palmer Dabbelt έγραψε:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 01:57:07 PDT (-0700), mick@ics.forth.gr wrote:
>> This patch series adds kexec/kdump and crash kernel
>> support on RISC-V. For testing the patches a patched
>> version of kexec-tools is needed (still a work in
>> progress) which can be found at:
>>
>> https://riscv.ics.forth.gr/kexec-tools-patched.tar.xz
>>
>> v3:
>> * Rebase on newer kernel tree
>> * Minor cleanups
>> * Split UAPI changes to a separate patch
>> * Improve / cleanup init_resources
>> * Resolve Palmer's comments
>>
>> v2:
>> * Rebase on newer kernel tree
>> * Minor cleanups
>> * Properly populate the ioresources tre, so that it
>> can be used later on for implementing strict /dev/mem
>> * Use linux,usable-memory on /memory instead of a new binding
>> * USe a reserved-memory node for ELF core header
>>
>> Nick Kossifidis (5):
>> RISC-V: Add EM_RISCV to kexec UAPI header
>> RISC-V: Add kexec support
>> RISC-V: Improve init_resources
>> RISC-V: Add kdump support
>> RISC-V: Add crash kernel support
>>
>> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 25 ++++
>> arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h | 6 +
>> arch/riscv/include/asm/kexec.h | 54 +++++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 6 +
>> arch/riscv/kernel/crash_dump.c | 46 ++++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/crash_save_regs.S | 56 +++++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/kexec_relocate.S | 222
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 193 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 113 ++++++++------
>> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 110 ++++++++++++++
>> include/uapi/linux/kexec.h | 1 +
>> 11 files changed, 787 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/kexec.h
>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/crash_dump.c
>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/crash_save_regs.S
>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/kexec_relocate.S
>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/machine_kexec.c
>
> Thanks. There were some minor issues and some merge conflicts, I put
> this on for-next with some fixups.

I've sent a v4 that shouldn't have merge conflicts, addressing some
comments from Alex as well, could you use that instead or is it too late
?