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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A330C4167B for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=korg header.b=Ep5mfn6/; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Sh2SN5ryLz3d8y for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 03:57:56 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=korg header.b=Ep5mfn6/; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux-foundation.org (client-ip=139.178.84.217; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=akpm@linux-foundation.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) (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 lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Sh2RP5lNgz3cCv for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 03:57:04 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA6C61E45; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59C48C433C9; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:56:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1701363418; bh=jNTamNThZ0rAs2o+KORaTzGsMmcQ2kdIW/zV+pisW9M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ep5mfn6/d/046KNhMrPxYSVs2b/H1SbZQJJM57P3hzC8hmlHC+aL7jEbzQHe/bzLV ZDl9UEr14ekcpfCJk6RDza5apPq9i/1g5VSUREK4wQ/5Ib8LBFZY5NsHmgDKwcsJd5 raSV/4nqny+fZeQRHQXL35saZ9wB+AO2cAuRD2YA= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:56:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Baoquan He Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kexec: fix KEXEC_FILE dependencies Message-Id: <20231130085657.6f7f500cc17b663747e4ee76@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231023110308.1202042-1-arnd@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, Arnd Bergmann , x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, eric_devolder@yahoo.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Vivek Goyal Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:03:18 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE, but still get purgatory code built in which is > > > totally useless. > > > > > > Not sure if I think too much over this. > > > > I see your point here, and I would suggest changing the > > CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_PURGATORY symbol to just indicate > > the availability of the purgatory code for the arch, rather > > than actually controlling the code itself. I already mentioned > > this for s390, but riscv would need the same thing on top. > > > > I think the change below should address your concern. > > Since no new comment, do you mind spinning v2 to wrap all these up? This patchset remains in mm-hotfixes-unstable from the previous -rc cycle. Eric, do you have any comments? Arnd, do you plan on a v2? If not, should I merge v1? If so, should I now add cc:stable?