From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63322C0650E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E172146F for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:11:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=duncanthrax.net header.i=@duncanthrax.net header.b="ZdE/vRjP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 46E172146F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stackframe.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45cv6q2NZmzDqMy for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 03:11:47 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=stackframe.org (client-ip=2001:470:70c5:1111::170; helo=smtp.duncanthrax.net; envelope-from=svens@stackframe.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stackframe.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=duncanthrax.net header.i=@duncanthrax.net header.b="ZdE/vRjP"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from smtp.duncanthrax.net (smtp.duncanthrax.net [IPv6:2001:470:70c5:1111::170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45cv3k49dzzDqVn for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 03:09:06 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=duncanthrax.net; s=dkim; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References :Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=lMzex8jlUCJ2Gwea4xwdWvbCtAAUxSDLkgjI9TE9va0=; b=ZdE/vRjPVuJYU9QL+q2GQwaSjq qeaGU3B+ntdQjmLgoZc6V6wW40HUteu1CTDy6jkHHjWywYcj36MCoQbPCuT/ufIwd+gCZCsCwfUk9 IqU54V7HHV4AFAjIk89VwcSCw2Lt4ly1qCt1JF10kSnBpRIko28/gILQyjAaYuWMiuZM=; Received: from [134.3.44.134] (helo=t470p.stackframe.org) by smtp.eurescom.eu with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hhznT-0006GR-8o; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 19:08:55 +0200 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 19:08:53 +0200 From: Sven Schnelle To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] generic ELF support for kexec Message-ID: <20190701170853.GD19243@t470p.stackframe.org> References: <20190625185433.GA10934@t470p.stackframe.org> <87o92isbxg.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87o92isbxg.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, deller@gmx.de, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Hi Michael, On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:04:11PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Sven Schnelle writes: > https://github.com/linuxppc/wiki/wiki/Booting-with-Qemu > > But I'm not sure where you get a version of kexec that uses kexec_file(). kexec-tools HEAD supports it, so that's not a problem. > > If that change is acceptable i would finish the patch and submit it. I think > > best would be to push this change through Helge's parisc tree, so we don't > > have any dependencies to sort out. > > That will work for you but could cause us problems if we have any > changes that touch that code. > > It's easy enough to create a topic branch with just that patch that both > of us merge. What should be the base branch for that patch? Christophe suggested the powerpc/merge branch? > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -31,540 +29,6 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > -#define PURGATORY_STACK_SIZE (16 * 1024) > > This is unused AFAICS. We should probably remove it explicitly rather > than as part of this patch. I have one patch right now. If wanted i can split up all the changes suggested during the review into smaller pieces, whatever you prefer. > Or that. > > > +#include > > +#include > > + > > +#define elf_addr_to_cpu elf64_to_cpu > > Why are we doing that rather than just using elf64_to_cpu directly? > > > +#ifndef Elf_Rel > > +#define Elf_Rel Elf64_Rel > > +#endif /* Elf_Rel */ > > And that? Don't know - ask the PPC people :-) Regards Sven