Hi Geoff,
On 03/12/2015:05:39:12 PM, Azriel Samson wrote:
> This was a setup issue on my side. kdump with your v11 patches worked fine
> without the above patch when I used your version of kexec-tools.
>
> In kexec-tools, I had to skip check_cpu_nodes() since we are using ACPI and
> the device tr
Hello Kumagai,
On 12/04/2015 10:30 AM, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
Hello, Zhou
On 12/02/2015 03:24 PM, Dave Young wrote:
Hi,
On 12/02/15 at 01:29pm, "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" wrote:
I think there is no problem if other test results are as expected.
--num-threads mainly reduces the time of compressing
Hello, Zhou
>On 12/02/2015 03:24 PM, Dave Young wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/02/15 at 01:29pm, "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" wrote:
>>> I think there is no problem if other test results are as expected.
>>>
>>> --num-threads mainly reduces the time of compressing.
>>> So for lzo, it can't do much help at most
Hi,
On 12/3/2015 12:56 PM, Geoff Levand wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 21:37 -0700, Azriel Samson wrote:
For kdump, I also require a version of the patch "arm64/kexec: Add support
for kexec-lite". Without this, the dump capture kernel cannot find the
device tree even on v11 that I tested.
Hi,
On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 21:37 -0700, Azriel Samson wrote:
> I pushed out a kexec-v12.1 branch to my linux-kexec repo [1] with fixes.
> Could you test it with both kexec reboot and kdump? For kdump, use
> something like:
> > CMDLINE += 'crashkernel=64M@2240M'
>
> For kdump, I also require a ve
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:08:33PM -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 19:03 +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > You can validly perform maintenance while the cache may allocate for a
> > region of memory, it's just that afterwards the cache may hold a clean
> > entries for
On 02/12/15 22:40, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 17:25, Geoff Levand wrote:
>> From: AKASHI Takahiro
>>
>> The current kvm implementation on arm64 does cpu-specific initialization
>> at system boot, and has no way to gracefully shutdown a core in terms of
>> kvm. Thi
On 2 December 2015 at 17:40, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 17:25, Geoff Levand wrote:
>> From: AKASHI Takahiro
>>
>> The current kvm implementation on arm64 does cpu-specific initialization
>> at system boot, and has no way to gracefully shutdown a core in terms of
>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:29:21AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> I was arguing about the case of oops_end --> crash_kexec
> --> return from crash_kexec because of !kexec_crash_image -->
> panic.
Aha.
> In the case of panic --> __crash_kexec, __crash_kexec is called
> only once, so we don'
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:01:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > > > simpler and safer.
> >
> > I'll state in detail.
> >
> > When we call c
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:01:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > > simpler and safer.
>
> I'll state in detail.
>
> When we call crash_kexec() w
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:57:30PM -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:40 +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> > All that can be solved in C, and mostly at compile time. Using an
> > assembler trampoline is complicating things for no good reason:
>
> I added this into my kexec-v12.1 b
12 matches
Mail list logo
