On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:22:48AM +1000, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:47:41PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > How does following series of patches look like. I have moved > > > elfcorehdr_addr out of vmcore.c and pushed it to arch dependent section > > > of crash dump to make sure that it can be worked with even when > > > CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE is disabled and CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is enabled. > > > > > > I tested it on x86_64. Compile tested it on i386 and ppc64. ia64 and > > > sh versions are completely untested. > > > > Given the current state of the code: > > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To process a kernel crash dump we pass the kernel elfcorehdr option, > > so testing to see if it was passed seems reasonable. > > > > In general I think this method of handling the problems with kdump is > > too brittle to live, but in the case of iommus we certainly need to do > > something different, and unfortunately iommus were not common on x86 > > when the original code was merged so we have not handled them well. > > Agreed, however these patches look like they really ought to be merged > into a single patch for the sake of bisect. As things stand, applying > the first patch will break the build on each architecture with an > architecture specific until the latter is applied.
That's a good point. I was not very sure because changes were in different arches and I broke the patch. At the same time changes are really miniscule in each arch. So, for the sake of not breaking compilation for git-bisect, I will generate a single patch tomorrow. (Until and unless somebody has an objection). Thanks Vivek > > -- > Horms _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
