Hi Akashi, Thanks for the reply. Hi Akashi, Geoff, In the code I could find assert(arm64_mem.memstart) in the function virt_to_phys. This address can be 0x0 when the segment start address is 0x0. so can we use this assert? The code flow is elf_arm64_load->load_crashdump_segments->add_buffer_phys_virt->add_segment_phys_virt->virt_to_phys and this call is also before the call to load_elf_exec_in_crashmem which init's arm64_mem.memstart to crash_reserved_mem.start. So arm64_mem.memstart is also not set before the call to virt_to_phys. Please share your comments. Thanks, Anurup On 1/8/2015 1:40 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Hi Anurup, > > On 01/08/2015 03:35 PM, Anurup M wrote: >> Hi Akashi, Geoff, >> >> I tried to check kdump on arm64 on Foundation model. The/proc/vmcore is generated. >> But I couldnot check if it is proper. Is there a makedumpfile binary for arm64? and also crash tool. >> I used the master branch of https://git.linaro.org/people/geoff.levand/linux-kexec.git to verify. >> Please provide some information about the current status or support for kdump on arm64? >> and the ways to verify or start development on Foundation model. > > The story is that I used to work on kdump, but handed it off > to Geoff at some time. Since then, he merged it into his repo > but I don't think that he has tested (verified) it yet. > So please take it as a study work (or prototype), although I'm > pretty sure that it works well on model except some issues. > > Regarding /proc/vmcore, if you can retrieve it to your host machine, > you can simply verify the contents as follows: > $ aarch64-linux-gnu-gdb vmlinux core(=vmcore) > (gdb) info threads > (gdb) bt > ... > > I also have a trivial patch for crash tool to cross-build it, but > arm64 support (by RedHat folk) is already there. > > Thanks, > -Takahiro AKASHI > >> Thanks, >> Anurup M >> >
