On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:54:15AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:00:39PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:54:47PM +0000, Geoff Levand wrote: > > > > AKASHI Takahiro (7): > > > > arm64: kdump: reserve memory for crash dump kernel > > > > arm64: limit memory regions based on DT property, usable-memory > > > > arm64: kdump: implement machine_crash_shutdown() > > > > arm64: kdump: add kdump support > > > > arm64: kdump: add VMCOREINFO's for user-space coredump tools > > > > arm64: kdump: enable kdump in the arm64 defconfig > > > > arm64: kdump: update a kernel doc > > > > > > > > Geoff Levand (4): > > > > arm64: Add back cpu reset routines > > > > arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support > > > > arm64/kexec: Enable kexec in the arm64 defconfig > > > > arm64/kexec: Add pr_debug output > > > > > > > > James Morse (3): > > > > arm64: hibernate: Don't hibernate on systems with stuck CPUs > > > > arm64: smp: Add function to determine if cpus are stuck in the kernel > > > > Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec > > > > > > I dropped patch 1 (hibernate), cherry-picked patch 2 from mainline > > > ("cpus stuck in the kernel", already pushed by Will to 4.7-rc5) and > > > merged patches 3-6, with the amendments that James mentioned. > > > > > > The kdump patches, including the "Documentation" one from James require > > > more review, testing and acks by the corresponding maintainers (kdump, > > > DT). > > > > I see what you mean, but even for Geoff's kexec part, the maintainer > > (Eric) have not given his ack. > > I just assumed he won't object ;). The only generic change is the > KEXEC_ARCH_AARCH64 in the uapi/linux/kexec.h file and the value chosen > matches EM_AARCH64. > > The kdump patches make such changes to Documentation and I would like > those acked by the kdump and DT maintainers. OK, I asked the corresponding maintainers to review them. > Pratyush Anand also had comments on the kdump patches in v19, so it's > fair to wait for him to complete the reviewing of the latest series. I think that it was my mistake that I referred to makedumpfile-related VMCOREINFO's in my patch. Since I'm not a user nor author of makedumpfile command for arm64, my changes should have been minimized, exluding any non-mandatory symbols. (Patch#13/14 is necessary for me to verify generated vmcore files with crash utility.) So I asked Pratyush to post his kernel patch based on his own requirements as he wants. I believe it's fair enough. > > > You also don't seem to have added a s-o-b for those patches (since > > > you are submitting them; unless you plan to let Akashi-san submit them > > > in the future). > > > > Basically Geoff has not reviewed nor tested kdump part, and > > so I'm not sure that adding his s-o-b is appropriate. > > It is appropriate. See the "Developer's Certificate of Origin" in > Documentation/SubmittingPatches. A s-o-b from Geoff doesn't necessarily > mean that he reviewed the patches but that he has the right to pass them > on under the open source license indicated in the file (and AFAICT it is > legally binding but IANAL). > > > Anyhow, I will post my future version of kdump by myself as kexec has > > been queued in for-next/core. > > Thanks. Since I've got no comments on kdump patches and had no updates so far, I don't plan to post v21 this week (at this point). (I will add "reviewed-by James" to patch#7/14 in future releases.) Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > -- > Catalin