[PATCH v3 0/8] (kexec-tools) arm64: add kdump support
takahiro.akashi at linaro.org
Thu Sep 29 07:26:48 PDT 2016
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:39:09AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:18:06AM -0700, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:52:00AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:33:53PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > My kernel patches of kdump suport on arm64 are currently under reviews.
> > > >
> > > > This patchset is synced with them (v26 ) and provides necessary changes
> > > > for kexec-tools. It should be applied on top of Geoff's kexec-tools patches
> > > > v5 along with a bugfix.
> > > >
> > > >  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-September/454588.html
> > > >  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-September/017110.html
> > > >  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-July/016664.html
> > >
> > > Unfortunately patch 2 does not seem to apply cleanly any more.
> > > Could you consider rebasing if you think this series is ready to be
> > > applied?
> > Yes, I will as there will be some changes needed again due to the discussions
> > on my kernel patch.
> > BTW, can you give me your opinion on my question, please?
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-September/017119.html
> I'm not particularly familiar with UEFI systems but for DT something under
> chosen seems to make sense.
> Regarding Mark's objections to a memmap= command line parameter.
> Perhaps that could be discussed further in the context that even
> though it is not particularly attractive it it being used on other
Oops, my question was not accurate here.
Instead, see the discussions:
The issue is the end address in a memory range can be handled
differently across various architectures.
So we are in a messy situation.
More information about the kexec