From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B8E3019A6; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760458278; cv=none; b=RHIru9LJWTeg/GCeQe/Sxx8ykc0BndePWZhAexWChcfOrBlIfLW9I+Oqq8PRZZOkzNzS5jd5mhNo+Sh1nDL6rECfytOVbXhuGzdYVoFPKjpWRCqH4RuRCLHCi5Q77kM4M2Wc9uUI4RE13KUPaOI1qPhcrrV3GpAd8DmgK4KJB20= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760458278; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xagAxPrd6zG7Djil6CYxWyxvbfl7KZqOc3GZdkKkIAE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dWOWpmRFAaEuQ5spSEfzYNjy9elmPL3qzOAiofdlHBJKrLabQr+ZDsci3vo5UR3Jcgcv0ispmee9NLEapnckmoD/oZDFUbvS78GntKFha3TUhtBEvRyNp5ia3VRnPzOWPKooW3mas749snsodJmAUtZRWcHldun9yep0vlAedKA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=uWTUAqm0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uWTUAqm0" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB1B8C4CEE7; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:11:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760458278; bh=xagAxPrd6zG7Djil6CYxWyxvbfl7KZqOc3GZdkKkIAE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=uWTUAqm0xXN1mbnYILy5rL2HVLdV2ve/FXOweq5pKife38/ITUDe75qbj4u3VOTud yJqNi+N75XBYiFY1dNfxwKnf1NyDEaEK17/L1hAAGxpdgA9lARd9cU9LqOebap7I6d ohLR8v5vlAl/0LP9XSa9qhPs0SsA0tlr2MpU9r/Lgz4WWV8eW4pC7K+YYaW74dQhpm iTuwJ0VXJew9+yBMkiZGpuRSIOvUnhDhq9qfQMBijCVZAO9KWIIQ+s62gtDVf67L49 53QYqOCDIMVH+Zt3AS1oQYutIrfVwht39r+2gxFGWV0RXqpC2StLzHtl7lguq09vkW 3b0LYBWLZxHnA== From: Pratyush Yadav To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: Jason Miu , Chris Li , Bjorn Helgaas , Pasha Tatashin , Bjorn Helgaas , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Danilo Krummrich , Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack , Pasha Tatashin , Vipin Sharma , Saeed Mahameed , Adithya Jayachandran , Parav Pandit , William Tu , Mike Rapoport , Jason Gunthorpe , Leon Romanovsky , skhawaja@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] LUO: PCI subsystem (phase I) In-Reply-To: (Pratyush Yadav's message of "Mon, 13 Oct 2025 15:58:41 +0200") References: <20250929150425.GA111624@bhelgaas> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:11:13 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Oct 13 2025, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10 2025, Jason Miu wrote: [...] >> For the folio sanity check with KEXEC_HANDOVER_DEBUG, I can follow >> that up. Would you tell me what we like to check before reboot, I may >> have missed some context. Thanks! > > The idea is to sanity-check the preserved folios in the kexec-reboot > flow somewhere. The main check discussed was to make sure the folios are > of the same order as they were preserved with. This will help catch bugs > where folios might split after being preserved. > > Maybe we can add some more checks too? Like making sure the folios > aren't freed after they were preserved. But that condition is a bit > trickier to catch. But at least the former should be simple enough to > do as a start. Also perhaps check in kho_preserve_folio() that the preserved folio is not in scratch memory? This can be a non-debug check as well I suppose, though looping through all scratch areas every time might end up being too slow. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav