On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:20:00AM +0800, chenjiahao (C) wrote:
>
> On 2023/7/26 5:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
> > riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Conor.
>
> Hi,
>
> My patchset was
Hey,
Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
Thanks,
Conor.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/ma
On 2023/7/26 14:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:20:00AM +0800, chenjiahao (C) wrote:
On 2023/7/26 5:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
Hey,
Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
Thanks,
Conor.
Hi,
My patchse
On 2023/7/26 5:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
Hey,
Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
Thanks,
Conor.
Hi,
My patchset was tested on current linux-next HEAD
(commit ID: 1e25dd777248, tag: next-20230725) and
it seems all ok
On riscv, the current crash kernel allocation logic is trying to
allocate within 32bit addressible memory region by default, if
failed, try to allocate without 4G restriction.
In need of saving DMA zone memory while allocating a relatively large
crash kernel region, allocating the reserved memory
