Hello Dave,
Thanks for the quick review and for your comments.
I'll separate the change to add arch_walk_system_ram and the change to add
kexec_locate_mem_hole into different patches, and add error handling for
KEXEC_ON_CRASH.
Am Montag, 13 Juni 2016, 15:29:39 schrieb Dave Young:
> On 06/12/16 at 12:10am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Allow architectures to specify different memory walking functions for
> > kexec_add_buffer. Intel uses iomem to track reserved memory ranges,
> > but PowerPC uses the memblock subsystem.
>
> Can the crashk_res be inserted to iomem_resource so that only one
> weak function for system ram is needed?
Sorry, it's not clear to me what you mean by inserting crashk_res into
iomem_resource, but I can add a bool for_crashkernel to arch_walk_system_ram
so that it can decide which kind of memory to traverse, so the default
implementation of kexec_file.c would be:
int __weak arch_walk_system_ram(bool for_crashkernel, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end, bool top_down,
void *data,
int (*func)(u64, u64, void *))
{
int ret;
if (for_crashkernel)
ret = walk_iomem_res_desc(crashk_res.desc,
IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM |
IORESOURCE_BUSY,
start, end, data, func);
else
ret = walk_system_ram_res(start, end, data, func);
if (ret != 1) {
/* A suitable memory range could not be found for buffer */
return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
}
}
and kexec_add_buffer / kexec_locate_mem_hole would call it with:
if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH)
ret = arch_walk_system_ram(true, crashk_res.start,
crashk_res.end, top_down, &buf,
locate_mem_hole_callback);
else
ret = arch_walk_system_ram(false, 0, -1, top_down, &buf,
locate_mem_hole_callback);
What do you think?
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
