Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 1 (riscv, crash_core)

Randy Dunlap
2023-12-04T19:11:56Z

Hi,

On 12/3/23 18:10, Baoquan He wrote:
> eric_devolder@yahoo.com, ignat@cloudflare.com,
> Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
> linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
> kexec <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
> Bcc: bhe@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 1 (riscv, crash_core)
> Reply-To:
> In-Reply-To: <bbd1bbfb-c482-433d-bce9-2b591b8e855e@infradead.org>
>
> On 12/01/23 at 11:53am, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/23 18:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20231130:
>>>
>>
>> on riscv 32-bit or 64-bit, with
>> # CONFIG_MMU is not set
>

[]

> I made two patches to decouple the kexec/crash code with CONFIG_MMU. Not
> sure if risc-v wants that.
>
> Or we can simply add dependency on MMU for ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP.
> Then when CONFIG_MMU=n, CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP, CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE,
> CONFIG_CRASH_CORE will be unset too. Please help check which one need be
> taken.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index 24c1799e2ec4..03d290da7262 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_PURGATORY
>
> config ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP
> def_bool y
> + depends on MMU=y
>
> config ARCH_HAS_GENERIC_CRASHKERNEL_RESERVATION
> def_bool CRASH_CORE
>

That works if the RISC-V folks prefer it.

Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> # build-tested

Thanks.

--
~Randy