On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 19/04/17 12:00, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:48:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/common/kexec.c > >>> +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c > >>> @@ -50,9 +50,10 @@ static cpumask_t crash_saved_cpus; > >>> > >>> static struct kexec_image *kexec_image[KEXEC_IMAGE_NR]; > >>> > >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0) > >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1) > >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2) > >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0) > >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1) > >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2) > >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_HC_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 3) > >> Perhaps KEXEC_FLAG_IN_HYPERCALL? Other than that (and this > > Make sense for me. > > Agreed. (I can fix on commit). > > > > >> clearly is subject to Andrew's opinion) > >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > > Otherwise Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > > CC'ing Julien. This is clearly a good bugfix for 4.9
Yep and I think that it is stable material too. Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
