[PATCH v20 00/14] arm64 kexec kernel patches

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:54:15AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:00:39PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:54:47PM +0000, Geoff Levand wrote:
> > > > AKASHI Takahiro (7):
> > > >       arm64: kdump: reserve memory for crash dump kernel
> > > >       arm64: limit memory regions based on DT property, usable-memory
> > > >       arm64: kdump: implement machine_crash_shutdown()
> > > >       arm64: kdump: add kdump support
> > > >       arm64: kdump: add VMCOREINFO's for user-space coredump tools
> > > >       arm64: kdump: enable kdump in the arm64 defconfig
> > > >       arm64: kdump: update a kernel doc
> > > > 
> > > > Geoff Levand (4):
> > > >       arm64: Add back cpu reset routines
> > > >       arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support
> > > >       arm64/kexec: Enable kexec in the arm64 defconfig
> > > >       arm64/kexec: Add pr_debug output
> > > > 
> > > > James Morse (3):
> > > >       arm64: hibernate: Don't hibernate on systems with stuck CPUs
> > > >       arm64: smp: Add function to determine if cpus are stuck in the kernel
> > > >       Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec
> > > 
> > > I dropped patch 1 (hibernate), cherry-picked patch 2 from mainline
> > > ("cpus stuck in the kernel", already pushed by Will to 4.7-rc5) and
> > > merged patches 3-6, with the amendments that James mentioned.
> > > 
> > > The kdump patches, including the "Documentation" one from James require
> > > more review, testing and acks by the corresponding maintainers (kdump,
> > > DT).
> > 
> > I see what you mean, but even for Geoff's kexec part, the maintainer
> > (Eric) have not given his ack.
> 
> I just assumed he won't object ;). The only generic change is the
> KEXEC_ARCH_AARCH64 in the uapi/linux/kexec.h file and the value chosen
> matches EM_AARCH64.
> 
> The kdump patches make such changes to Documentation and I would like
> those acked by the kdump and DT maintainers.

OK, I asked the corresponding maintainers to review them.

> Pratyush Anand also had comments on the kdump patches in v19, so it's
> fair to wait for him to complete the reviewing of the latest series.

I think that it was my mistake that I referred to makedumpfile-related
VMCOREINFO's in my patch.
Since I'm not a user nor author of makedumpfile command for arm64,
my changes should have been minimized, exluding any non-mandatory symbols.
(Patch#13/14 is necessary for me to verify generated vmcore files
with crash utility.)
So I asked Pratyush to post his kernel patch based on his own requirements
as he wants.
I believe it's fair enough.

> > > You also don't seem to have added a s-o-b for those patches (since
> > > you are submitting them; unless you plan to let Akashi-san submit them
> > > in the future).
> > 
> > Basically Geoff has not reviewed nor tested kdump part, and
> > so I'm not sure that adding his s-o-b is appropriate.
> 
> It is appropriate. See the "Developer's Certificate of Origin" in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches. A s-o-b from Geoff doesn't necessarily
> mean that he reviewed the patches but that he has the right to pass them
> on under the open source license indicated in the file (and AFAICT it is
> legally binding but IANAL).
> 
> > Anyhow, I will post my future version of kdump by myself as kexec has
> > been queued in for-next/core.
> 
> Thanks.

Since I've got no comments on kdump patches and had no updates
so far, I don't plan to post v21 this week (at this point).
(I will add "reviewed-by James" to patch#7/14 in future releases.)

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> -- 
> Catalin