On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:22:18 +0200
"Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 01.08.16 at 16:15, <ptesa...@suse.com> wrote:
>[...]
> > But let me repeat: if PV kexec works, then it has always had priority
> > over the hypercall. If it doesn't work, then it has always been broken.
> > For the latter case, I agree that the kernel should not even allow to
> > load the kexec image, but that's unrelated to my patch.
>
> It's not, afaict: without your patch, the hypercall to report the guest
> crashed would be made unconditionally, without even an attempt to
> load that secondary kernel.
That's a misunderstanding then. Without my patch and without
'crash_kexec_post_notifiers' on the kernel command line, panic() _will_
attempt kexec, see the beginning of panic():
if (!crash_kexec_post_notifiers) {
printk_nmi_flush_on_panic();
__crash_kexec(NULL);
}
That's the very first thing done, even before running the panic
handlers on panic_notifier_list.
Petr T
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
