From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964863AbcFMHDG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 03:03:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43272 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932165AbcFMHDF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 03:03:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:02:58 +0800 From: Dave Young To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] kexec_file_load implementation for PowerPC Message-ID: <20160613070258.GA4974@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <1465701022-11601-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1465701022-11601-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:03:03 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/12/16 at 12:10am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Hello, > > This patch series implements the kexec_file_load system call on PowerPC. > > It starts by removing an x86 assumption from kexec_file: kexec_add_buffer uses > iomem to find reserved memory ranges, but PowerPC uses the memblock subsystem. > Hooks are added so that each arch can specify how memory ranges can be found. > > Also, the memory-walking logic in kexec_add_buffer is useful in this > implementation to find a free area for the purgatory's stack, so that same > patch moves that logic to kexec_locate_mem_hole. > > The kexec_file_load system call needs to apply relocations to the purgatory > but adding code for that would duplicate functionality with the module loading > mechanism, which also needs to apply relocations to the kernel modules. > Therefore, this patch series factors out the module relocation code so that it > can be shared. > > One thing that is still missing is crashkernel support, which I intend to > submit shortly. But seems there's no error handling in patches about KEXEC_ON_CRASH? It would be good to either sending out the whole set or handle the error cases correctly. [snip] Thanks Dave