Hi, On 12/3/23 18:10, Baoquan He wrote: > [email protected], [email protected], > Linux Next Mailing List <[email protected]>, > Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>, > linux-riscv <[email protected]>, > kexec <[email protected]> > Bcc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 1 (riscv, crash_core) > Reply-To: > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > On 12/01/23 at 11:53am, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> >> On 11/30/23 18:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20231130: >>> >> >> on riscv 32-bit or 64-bit, with >> # CONFIG_MMU is not set >
[] > I made two patches to decouple the kexec/crash code with CONFIG_MMU. Not > sure if risc-v wants that. > > Or we can simply add dependency on MMU for ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP. > Then when CONFIG_MMU=n, CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP, CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE, > CONFIG_CRASH_CORE will be unset too. Please help check which one need be > taken. > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > index 24c1799e2ec4..03d290da7262 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_PURGATORY > > config ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP > def_bool y > + depends on MMU=y > > config ARCH_HAS_GENERIC_CRASHKERNEL_RESERVATION > def_bool CRASH_CORE > That works if the RISC-V folks prefer it. Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> # build-tested Thanks. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
