[PATCH v16 00/11] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64 kdump

[john.p.donnelly at oracle.com]

On 12/8/21 11:13 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:46:35PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> Chen Zhou (10):
>>    x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH_ALIGN
>>    x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation
>>      consistent
>>    x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions
>>      reserve_crashkernel()
>>    x86: kdump: move xen_pv_domain() check and insert_resource() to
>>      setup_arch()
>>    x86: kdump: move reserve_crashkernel[_low]() into crash_core.c
>>    arm64: kdump: introduce some macros for crash kernel reservation
>>    arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X
>>    x86, arm64: Add ARCH_WANT_RESERVE_CRASH_KERNEL config
>>    of: fdt: Add memory for devices by DT property
>>      "linux,usable-memory-range"
>>    kdump: update Documentation about crashkernel
>>
>> Zhen Lei (1):
>>    of: fdt: Aggregate the processing of "linux,usable-memory-range"
> 
> Apart from a minor comment I made on patch 8 and some comments from Rob
> that need addressing, the rest looks fine to me.
> 
> Ingo stated in the past that he's happy to ack the x86 changes as long
> as there's no functional change (and that's the case AFAICT). Ingo, does
> your conditional ack still stand?
> 
> In terms of merging, I'm happy to take it all through the arm64 tree
> with acks from the x86 maintainers. Alternatively, with the change I
> mentioned for patch 8, the first 5 patches could be queued via the tip
> tree on a stable branch and I can base the rest of the arm64 on top.
> 
> Thomas, Ingo, Peter, any preference?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Hi,

If you notice the trend over the past year , some of additional review 
requests are because the submitter had to rebase to the next version.

Can we get this acked and placed in a build so others can test and start 
using it ?

Thank you,
JD