RE: [PATCH linux-next 1/3] x86, crash: don't nest CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdef inside CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdef scope

[Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>]

From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> 
> On 01/29/24 at 06:27pm, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024
> 5:51 AM
> > >
> > > Michael pointed out that the #ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is nested inside
> > > arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c.
> >
> > Did some words get left out in the above sentence?  It mentions the Xen
> > case, but not the Hyper-V case.  I'm not sure what you intended.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your careful reviewing.
> 
> Yeah, I tried to list all affected file names, seems my vim editor threw
> away some words. And I forgot mentioning the change in reboot.c.
> 
> I adjusted log as below according to your comments, do you think it's OK
> now?

Yes -- looks like everything is included and clear up my confusion.  But
I still have two small nits per below. :-)

Michael

> 
> ===
> Michael pointed out that the #ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is nested inside
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdef scope in some XEN, HyperV codes.

s/Hyper-V/HyperV/

> 
> Although the nesting works well too since CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP has
> dependency on CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE, it may cause confusion because there
> are places where it's not nested, and people may think it needs be nested

s/needs to be/needs be/

> even though it doesn't have to.
> 
> Fix that by moving  CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdeffery of codes out of
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdeffery scope.
> 
> And also put function machine_crash_shutdown() definition inside
> CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdef scope instead of CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE ifdef.
> 
> And also fix a building error Nathan reported as below by replacing
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE ifdef with CONFIG_VMCORE_INFO ifdef.
> ......
> ===
> 
> Thanks
> Baoquan