On 19/05/2022 16:20, Scott Branden wrote:
> [...]
>> Hi Scott / Desmond, thanks for the detailed answer! Is this adapter
>> designed to run in x86 only or you have other architectures' use cases?
> The adapter may be used in any PCIe design that supports DMA.
> So it may be possible to run in arm6
On 18/05/2022 19:17, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Guilherme,
>
> +Desmond
> [...]
I'm afraid it breaks kdump if this device is not reset beforehand - it's
a doorbell write, so not high risk I think...
But in case the not-reset device can be probed normally in kdump kernel,
t
On 19/05/2022 04:03, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
> I would ignore it for now. If anyone would want to safe the log
> then they would need to read it. They will most likely use
> the existing kmsg_dump() infastructure. In fact, they should
> use it to avoid a code duplication.
>
> Best Regards,
> Pe
On 18/05/2022 04:33, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, I would distinguish it the following way.
>
> + If the notifier is preserving kernel log then it should be ideally
> treated as kmsg_dump().
>
> + It the notifier is saving another debugging data then it better
> fits into the
On 18/05/2022 04:58, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>> I does similar things like kmsg_dump() so it should be called in
>> the same location (after info notifier list and before kdump).
>>
>> A solution might be to put it at these notifiers at the very
>> end of the "info" list or make extra "dump" not
On 18/05/2022 04:38, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
> I have answered this in more detail in the other reply, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/YoShZVYNAdvvjb7z@alley
>
> I agree that both notifiers in
>
> drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/pm/pm-arm.c
> drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c
>
> better fit into
On 17/05/2022 10:57, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
--- a/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c
@@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@ static int bcm_vk_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const
struct pci_device_id *ent)
>>> [... snip ...]
>>> It seems to reset some hardw
On 17/05/2022 10:28, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>>> Disagree here. I'm looping Google maintainers, so they can comment.
>>> (CCed Evan, David, Julius)
>>>
>>> This notifier is clearly a hypervisor notification mechanism. I've fixed
>>> a locking stuff there (in previous patch), I feel it's low-risk
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:07 AM Guilherme G. Piccoli
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I agree with the blinking stuff, I can rework and add all LED/blinking
> stuff into the loop list, it does make sense. I'll comment a bit in the
> others below...
>
> On 16/05/2022 11:01, Petr Mladek wrote:
Thanks for the review!
I agree with the blinking stuff, I can rework and add all LED/blinking
stuff into the loop list, it does make sense. I'll comment a bit in the
others below...
On 16/05/2022 11:01, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>> --- a/arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-reset.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/sgi-ip2
On 03/05/2022 14:44, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Hi Michael, thanks for your feedback! I agree that your idea could work,
>> but...there is one downside: imagine the kmsg_dump() approach is not set
>> in some Hyper-V guest, then we would rely in the regular notification
>> mechanism
On 29/04/2022 14:30, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Guilherme G. Piccoli Sent: Wednesday, April 27,
> 2022 3:49 PM
>> [...]
>>
>> @@ -2843,7 +2843,7 @@ static void __exit vmbus_exit(void)
>> if (ms_hyperv.misc_features & HV_FEATURE_GUEST_CRASH_MSR_AVAILABLE) {
>> kmsg_dum
The goal of this new panic notifier is to allow its users to register
callbacks to run very early in the panic path. This aims hypervisor/FW
notification mechanisms as well as simple LED functions, and any other
simple and safe mechanism that should run early in the panic path; more
dangerous callb
13 matches
Mail list logo
