Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] x86: kexec_file: factor out elf core header related functions

Hi AKASHI, On 02/22/18 at 08:17pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > exclude_mem_range() and prepare_elf64_headers() can be re-used on other > architectures, including arm64, as well. So let them factored out so as to > move them to generic side in the next patch. > > fill_up_crash_elf_data() can

Re: [PATCH] kexec: do KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and fallback to KEXEC_LOAD if not supported.

Hi Petr, On 02/23/18 at 09:29am, Petr Tesarik wrote: > Hi Baoquan, > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:20:43 +0800 > Baoquan He wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > On 02/22/18 at 11:24pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > The new KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is preferred in the case the platform supports >

Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add kexec_file_load support to s390

On 02/23/18 at 11:01am, Philipp Rudo wrote: > Hi Dave > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:34:05 +0800 > Dave Young wrote: > > > On 02/14/18 at 10:54am, Philipp Rudo wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > I just browsed AKASHI's patches (v7). The way I see it the common code > > > changes

Re: [PATCH] kexec: do KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and fallback to KEXEC_LOAD if not supported.

On 02/23/18 at 09:29am, Petr Tesarik wrote: > Hi Baoquan, > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:20:43 +0800 > Baoquan He wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > On 02/22/18 at 11:24pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > The new KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is preferred in the case the platform supports > > > it

Re: [PATCH] kexec: do KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and fallback to KEXEC_LOAD if not supported.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:20:43 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On 02/22/18 at 11:24pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > The new KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is preferred in the case the platform > > supports it because it allows kexec in locked down secure boot mode. > > > > However, some

Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add kexec_file_load support to s390

Hi Dave On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:34:05 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > On 02/14/18 at 10:54am, Philipp Rudo wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > I just browsed AKASHI's patches (v7). The way I see it the common code > > changes > > are on different areas of kexec_file and shouldn't get in

Re: [PATCH v8 03/13] kexec_file,x86,powerpc: factor out kexec_file_ops functions

Hi AKASHI, On 02/22/18 at 08:17pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > As arch_kexec_kernel_*_{probe,load}(), arch_kimage_file_post_load_cleanup() > and arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sg can be parameterized with a kexec_file_ops > array and now duplicated among some architectures, let's factor them out. > >

Re: [PATCH v8 02/13] kexec_file: make an use of purgatory optional

Hi AKASHI, On 02/22/18 at 08:17pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On arm64, no trampline code between old kernel and new kernel will be > required in kexec_file implementation. This patch introduces a new > configuration, ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_PURGATORY, and allows related code to be > compiled in only if

Re: [PATCH v8 01/13] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

Hi AKASHI, On 02/22/18 at 08:17pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in > commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through > resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM > in reversed order,

Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add kexec_file_load support to s390

On 02/14/18 at 10:54am, Philipp Rudo wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I just browsed AKASHI's patches (v7). The way I see it the common code changes > are on different areas of kexec_file and shouldn't get in conflict. Only in > the > arch code (s390 and arm64) some function calls might need an update. But

Re: [PATCH] kexec: do KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and fallback to KEXEC_LOAD if not supported.

Hi Baoquan, On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:20:43 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On 02/22/18 at 11:24pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > The new KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is preferred in the case the platform supports > > it because it allows kexec in locked down secure boot mode. > > > >